administration is winging it and driving the united states headfirst into another open ended foreign conflict that, as history has shown, is destined to backfire in years to come. for those of you who deny this is war mongering, there is still a us aircraft carrier parked in the caribbean. tens of thousands of young american men and women remain on standby. and if the president wants to drag the united states into a war, the american people don't want, they don't want this. he must come to congress first. the debate belongs on this floor, and we've all asked for what the cost has been and what the cost will be to the

american people. no answers to that either. so let's be equally clear. venezuela is not an end of this reckless. in exchange for a rules based system, the united states built to extend our influence around the globe, donald trump is reducing the united states to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies. this isn't making america great again. it's making us isolated and weak. donald trump's new world order is not new. it is the old logic of empires might makes right the strong take from the weak. it is the same backwards worldview that vladimir putin uses in ukraine, and the same logic china will cite when it looks at taiwan. we've seen where that road

leads to endless conflict. so to my republican colleagues, the american people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war. now is the time to stand by your oath of office and end this dangerous game before it's too late. it is time for congress to reclaim our authority that the constitution gave us that article one authority and say enough is enough. a president is not a king. he's not an emperor. and without an act of congress, he cannot invade a nation and set us down the road of war. let us stand up and do our responsibilities. let's see where the congress stands. let's have a vote on this floor. and see where the majority of the members of the united

states house of representatives is. the people deserve to know. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields the chair recognizes the gentleman reserves. the gentleman reserves. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i want to start by saying something simple that shouldn't be controversial in the people's house on questions of war and peace, on questions of life and death. congress is not supposed to be a potted plant. we don't get paid to outsource hard decisions. we don't get brownie points for showing up. our founders weren't naive about threats, but they were realistic about power. that's why they chose to entrust congress with the power to make war. not the president, not the courts, not the states, but the elected representatives of the people. and call me crazy. but i think if we abdicate that power, we not only we we, we are not only

doing a disservice to the people we represent, we are violating our sacred oath of office, our oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. now, the last time i brought up this resolution, i was told it was premature because there had been they had not been strikes in venezuela yet. let me quote what my republican friends said in their own words, chairman, mass quote, this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside venezuela. end quote. congressman keith self said, quote, this is not necessary as it removes our armed forces from hostilities against a country where there have been no hostilities. end quote. congressman warren davidson quote is, is the contention that this is a present condition, that there are u.s. forces in violation of the war powers resolution, or is it a hypothetical future, end quote, congressman tom mcclintock? if the president launched an unprovoked attack on venezuela without congressional declaration, we

should have this debate. until then, i think democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter. even siouxsie wiles, the president's own chief of staff, said, and i quote, if he were to authorize some activity on land in venezuela, then would need congress. so we got lots of smug lectures from the other side. but guess what? on january 3rd, 2026, not only did donald trump authorize land activity in venezuela, his administration did not come to congress beforehand. we weren't even the first group that he talked to after the attack on venezuela. and i guess the best we can get from the current majority here is that there's never a good time for congress to assert its war powers. it's either too soon or it's too late. well, i don't think it's too late because we're still dealing with the consequences of this unauthorized, unlawful military strike. nicolas maduro, a brutal tyrant, was removed from power, and the trump administration replaced maduro with his own damn vice president. i mean, is that the

big victory that my friends think we should be celebrating? meet the new boss. same as the old boss they left in power. the same illegitimate regime that rules through oppression, fraud and violence. they left and controlled the same security apparatus that violates people's rights. they preserve the same corrupt cartel state. am i missing something here? because from what i can tell, the president put our troops in harm's way without congressional consent. also, that he could replace one dictator with another dictator. everything is the same except the face at the podium. and now the president says he's the one running venezuela. i don't even know what the hell that means. he says we control the oil. what happens if venezuela, the venezuelan people don't want that? will he send troops into venezuela? what is the clearly defined mission here? i don't know what it is. i mean, look what's happened. since he claimed he's in charge. repression has gotten worse. security forces are interrogating people at

checkpoints, confiscating phones, detaining journalists. again, i asked, what was this all about? and if we don't know what? and we and we don't know what will happen next, shouldn't we all agree? whether you support trump's actions or oppose them, that we should have a debate on this stuff, that we should authorize an expansion of military forces, if that's what's in the future, that that should be a debate. we should have a vote on it. that's all we're asking here. but this is crazy. we can't be asleep at the switch. i mean, no oversight, no hearings, no votes, just blind obedience to the executive. that's not the way this place is supposed to run. so if my colleagues respect this institution, the house of representatives, they will vote yes to stop this madness from going any further than it already has. we ought to vote on these issues. and with that, i reserve. >> the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

neither of my colleagues bothered to say anything about what their bill they're bringing forward actually does. they didn't say a word about it. so let's quote their own bill for them, since they clearly don't want to talk about it. they want to remove us forces from hostilities in venezuela. that is what the bill says. anybody can go read it. black ink, white paper. so let's get straight to the point. the us is not at war with venezuela. i know you all predicted that there's going to be some forever protracted war, but we were never at war with venezuela. there are no boots on the ground. democrats are asking us to vote on a resolution about a situation that literally does not exist. we do not have anybody there in venezuela fighting. there are no tanks on the ground in caracas. there are no snipers in the tree line. doesn't exist. again, we are not at war. maybe they're conferring about that right now. let me confer with my colleagues a minute. are we

at war? i confirmed with my staff. we're not at war. are there any troops on the ground? i confirmed with my staff also, there are no troops on the ground. they should confer with their staff. i see them doing that. your senate democrat colleagues. they tried to bring this exact same resolution to the floor of the senate, but even the senate was smart enough to pull it because they didn't want to be embarrassed because let's say it again, we are not at war. most of you democrats predicted that we were going to be in some forever war, which again, by the way, you said after the strike hitting the iranian nuclear facilities, their nuclear infrastructure, you all said we're going to be in a forever war. we weren't. and then you said the same thing years ago when president trump killed qassem soleimani. we're going to be in this forever protracted war. guess what? we weren't we haven't been, not for one moment since then. my

democrat colleagues, they are batting zero in predicting forever wars. operation absolute resolve was a law enforcement action to bring nicolas maduro, an indicted narco terrorist, with a $50 million bounty, to justice, and president trump finished the job. thank you, president trump, for finishing the job. it was literally over before breakfast. i've been in war. i can tell you an operation that's over before breakfast. that's not a war. the department of war, let me say this again, is not engaged in any hostilities within the venezuelan territory or with the venezuelan military. they're not in tank battles. there are no tactical operations centers there. there are no convoys. there are no us mess halls over there. there are no field hospitals. there are no trenches with infantry soldiers shooting at one another. we are we're not even there long enough for soldiers to heat up an mre. that's what

we eat in the field in the military, guys. but just to give you a level of peace of mind because you are curious about this, secretary rubio confirmed in his letter last week that no u.s. armed forces are in venezuela. he also confirmed that should there be any military operations that would put our forces in hostilities with venezuela, that the administration will provide the appropriate notifications to congress, literally in his letter. so what is this really about this bill that you all refused to even say a word about in your opening statements? it's about spite. it's about the fact that you don't want president trump to arrest maduro and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history, your hypocrisy is clear as you chant and you lead

your no kings protest. but when it comes to taking down a dictator, you crawl into a corner, you curl up and you start to cry about it. this is about your base having protests to free maduro. this is about appeasing your far left friends. now, whether my colleagues want to admit it or not, the world is a safer place because president trump had the backbone, the stones, to do what nobody else would bring nicolas maduro to justice. so let me say this affirmatively as possible. if anybody votes yes on this war power resolution that my colleagues didn't want to describe, they are stupid because, again, there is nobody at war, no forces in hostilities in venezuela. it would be like them calling me today to take a pie out of the oven that we all ate a month ago. mr. speaker, i

reserve. >> the gentleman reserves. members are reminded to address the remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> you know what happened in the senate? they had a vote. first, five republicans joined democrats. but in his general style, two of them were very threatened by the president and had to reverse their vote the next week. we need to have the vote here and see if the courage that the five first showed and the three that continued to show whether my colleagues on the other side is going to have the courage to stand up. and do their job and make sure that the power that we have in the house of representatives to oversee the executive branch and not just be a patsy to this executive branch exist. i now yield two

minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, representative jim himes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. ranking member. not much surprises me anymore, but to sit here and to listen to the storied house foreign affairs committee, chaired by somebody who calls the opposition stupid to hear our motivations as we stand up for a fundamental constitutional prerogative mocked through ad hominem attacks. shame, sir. shame. we are here because we are standing for our constitutional right to be consulted on the most consequential decision that the united states can make, whether we engage in hostilities and put young men and women at risk. the chairman, summer stock, theater and cringey antics notwithstanding, this has nothing to do with whether there are troops on the ground

in venezuela. we will stipulate your argument. pathetic as it is, mr. speaker, what this is about is whether we see what we happened, what we saw happen three weeks ago happen again. three weeks ago. there were boots on the ground and we didn't know about it. this bill is about saying that on the most consequential thing that this congress can do, we have a voice, the representatives of the people, the article one authority. let's set aside venezuela. i won't use that term again. let's stand up for our constitutional rights to be consulted for what may happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or next week. not much surprises me anymore, mr. speaker, i've watched my majority friends completely abandon their policy positions brutally anti-immigration because of this president obliterating free trade, completely leaving behind everything that the republican party used to stand for praising vladimir putin, attacking our nato allies. you know what? policy flexibility is not the worst thing in the

world. i wish it weren't happening because of the reason that it's happening. but policy flexibility is one thing. but abrogating your constitutional duty to be consulted and to authorize force and then to be mocked for it. shame, sir. shame. we need to stand up for as an institution and say we get consulted on the most consequential things that we can do. i yield back. >> the chair again. >> the gentleman reserves. once again, i want to remind you. direct your comments to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and again, i just say to the distinguished chairman that his arguments are it's either too late, it's either too early or it's too late. i mean, our troops were on the ground. our troops were shot at. they were wounded. thankfully, they are home and they are safe. but with this, all we're saying here is that if you're going to

expand and utilize our military again, you come to congress and ask for a vote. and that's not just our prerogative, it's our responsibility. it's in the constitution. that's our damn job. if you don't want to do it, do something else. but it's our responsibility. and in terms of the gentleman's interpretation of the war powers resolution, i would simply suggest that maybe he and his team go to the congressional research service and get a briefing to understand how it works. but this is our responsibility. it's our job. i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, miss hoolihan. >> thank you, mr. mcgovern. and it's really devastating to listen to the other side, talking about how we somehow were not supposed to be told when boots went on the ground before, somehow we were lucky enough, by god's grace, that nothing bad happened to men and women in the service of of our nation. and yet they actually were injured, seven of them. the us military is being used against venezuela without

congressional authorization, without transparency, and in ways that appear only designed to benefit the very powerful amongst us, the oil companies, and not the venezuelan people, and certainly not our american people to whom we are obligated to represent. it's as simple as that. the american people don't want their sons or their daughters sent into harm's way for their missions to venezuela or to greenland, or to anywhere else that are undertaken just to enrich corporations and the most wealthy amongst us and cronies of the president's, and to do nothing in the process to lower the cost of living, to help families afford housing or health care, or to secure a future for our children. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> gentlemen. >> i i'm struck by the fact that. >> we have 30 additional seconds. >> i am struck by the fact that we are in a place where we have maligned others in the past for brutish isolationism, for colonial instincts that we have long condemned in our own adversaries. i urge my

colleagues on both sides of this aisle to vote yes, to do our jobs so that we may reaffirm our authority and rein in reckless action. thank you. and i yield back. >> the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to my friend, i would just say this will probably be the only apology they get out of me today. i apologize for talking about the bill and the text of the bill that they still refuse to talk about. they're not willing to do that. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. crawford. actually, i yield him as much time as he shall use. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this critical issue. mr. speaker, make no mistake about it, we are not at war with venezuela. nicolas maduro is a murderer, an autocrat, a narco terrorist, a thug who is oppressed his own people, stolen elections and turned a

once prosperous and free country into a desperate nation that millions have fled. and most importantly, as for the action of the united states took against him on january 3rd, he is a criminal and indicted fugitive from us justice. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have demanded maduro's removal for years after the stolen 24 election, the fraudulent 18 election and the constituent assembly power grab in 2017. in fact, h. res. 1409 of the 118th congress is a democrat sponsored resolution with the unambiguous title of, quote, standing in solidarity with the venezuelan people and condemning nicolas maduro's attempt to steal the venezuelan presidential election. or here's another democratic hit h.r. 87, for one of the 118th congress, pointing to the threat to our homeland, defining maduro as a person of concern who has engaged in, quote, long term pattern or of

serious instances of activity adverse to the national security of the united states, the security of critical infrastructure of the united states, or the safety and security of united states persons, and who can forget democrat sponsored h.r. 5006 70 of the 118th congress. that's succinctly called for an end to the usurpation of presidential authorities by nicolas maduro. instead of celebrating president trump's historic leadership on this issue and the unmatched operational excellence of the united states military, law enforcement officers, and intelligence community in carrying out this historic and heroic effort, house democrats are once again putting politics before protecting the american people. mr. speaker, this hypocrisy is evident in the message coming from congressional democrats. earlier this month, chuck schumer stated that president trump, quote, seems content to drag our country into an endless war with no plan, no transparency, and nothing but wishful thinking. end quote. nothing could be further from the truth. operation absolute resolve was a masterfully,

meticulously planned law enforcement operation supported by the us military. i don't know how much clearer we must be with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the us is not at war with venezuela. none of the actions taken by the trump administration to execute an arrest warrant on a criminal constitute war. the trump administration has briefed both chambers of congress in detail on the operation to bring maduro to justice, an action that democrats in this chamber would have celebrated had it been carried out by the feckless and failed biden administration. additionally, secretary rubio confirmed again to congress on january 14th that there are currently no u.s. troops in venezuela and that the introduction of us armed forces into future hostilities will be undertaken, consistent with notifications of the war powers resolution if required. mr. speaker, the hypocrisy of house democrats is palpable this afternoon in this chamber. i urge each of my colleagues to vote down this deeply flawed resolution. instead, thank president trump for continuing to take historic action to place the safety of american people. first, i thank chairman mast for his

partnership and leadership and yield the balance of my time. >> i reserve. >> gentleman. reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> the last time we were here, my the chairman was talking about it was all about drugs. yet today i have not heard anything about drugs. the president said it was about drugs. that was the imminent threat to the united states. allegedly. you don't hear anything about drugs. we don't hear anything about democracy. all we hear about is oil and taking those resources. fact of the matter is they talk about we're not at war. i know that that aircraft carrier is still sitting right there where we led the attack before, where the attack took place. i know there's a blockade attacking taking place right now. so our military is still right off the shore of venezuela. and i know that we want to make sure that we take care of our responsibility as members of

the house of representatives and have the oversight and say to the president, should he decide to strike again, come to the congress first. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, representative chris deluzio. >> thank the. >> gentleman from new york, mr. speaker, and to respond to the the notion of hypocrisy that we should rely on the secretary of state's notification when required. we were not notified. the congress did not receive notification or ask for authorization before americans were sent to fight and to bleed. in venezuela, seven americans were wounded in that military operation. there is a functional blockade of venezuelan oil, as others have pointed out here. mr. speaker, an aircraft carrier strike group sits nearby, poised to again send americans into venezuela should the president order them. and let's talk about hypocrisy in the 118th congress, this body voted on two wars war powers resolutions

to remove americans from hostilities that had not been authorized by the congress. and in those two votes, 52 republicans and 47 republicans, respectively, thought that congress ought to have a say about our war powers and what's changed. the party of the occupant of the white house. be consistent, mr. speaker. support this resolution, i yield back. >> the gentleman or the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. speaker, the gentleman keeps talking about the bill, and here it is. here i did talk about the bill, and let's talk about the bill again. i have it right here. it's two pages. the way the bill is written is to comply with the war powers act. the bill would simply prevent further escalation. if you're watching at home, read it yourself. h 68. and the reason we we think we need to do that is because the administration already did not get permission before escalating the first time. and by the chairman's logic, the only time we can ever have a vote is if there

are physically boots on the ground. that just is logically insane. it doesn't comport with the way the war powers act is written. by his logic, the president should be able to launch a preemptive nuclear war without congressional authorization. i mean, that's nuts. i now yield 1.5 minutes to the gentleman from new york. mr. ryan. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, we face a fundamental question here. who makes the decision to send our most precious resource, our young men and women in uniform, into harm's way? is it a five time draft dodger who's called them suckers and losers, or is it the american people with us as their voices? mr. speaker, i was on the receiving end of this same chickenhawk bs for 27 months in combat in iraq, and i don't need to be lectured by my colleagues. we all know how that went. thousands of american lives lost, trillions of dollars spent not on one, but two forever wars over the

last 20 plus years that we should not have started in the first place. and most importantly, no honest conversation with the american people about what would be required, what blood and treasure would be spilled across halfway across the world. and now we're seeing it play out all again. history doesn't repeat, but it certainly rhymes. we in this room had the secretary of defense and the secretary of state come to congress before the end of this calendar year and blatantly lie to our faces and more importantly, lie to the american people. why? because they know it isn't right or popular. the last thing, mr. speaker, the american people want is another regime change. war forever. war for oil. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to not repeat history. yield, yield back to the gentleman. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, there it was again, a forever war. president trump has never brought america into a forever war. any operation he's conducted pretty much done before breakfast, just like venezuela. i think my democrat colleagues can't wrap their head around that. something can be about more than one thing at a time. it can be about maduro and his lawlessness. it can be about drugs. it can be about the people of venezuela. it can also be about making sure sanctioned oil doesn't flow around the globe. it can be about more than one thing. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, my friend mr. mario diaz-balart. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. you know, here we go again. as chairman massa said, there are no troops in venezuela. look, the only purpose of this resolution, let's be clear, is to counter, to stop the counter of narco terrorism and drug traffickers in this hemisphere. and i know that somebody in the

radical left are upset that maduro, the head of the cartel de los olas, was picked up and brought to new york to stand trial. these narco terrorists are responsible for the death of thousands, thousands of americans every single year because of drugs. so every time the us eliminates one of these drug boats, it actually saves american lives. and let's talk about what is actually going on. while there are no u.s. troops, the women, men and women of the armed forces, what they're doing, they've struck 35 drug boats smuggling drugs that kill americans. they've seized seven oil tankers attempting to evade sanctions. so it's very simple. let's not protect those drug dealers, those cartels. let's protect the american people. the way to do that is to vote no on this resolution. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve. >> mr. speaker.

>> again, my democrat colleagues are not speaking about the words of the bill. the basic grammar, it says remove forces from hostilities. there's no forces in venezuela. they can't just make up words. i know they like to do that. they like to say plural pronouns can be used on one person and things like that. but they can't just make up grammar. right? the bill. right. if you want to do it, i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield five minutes to an individual who has truly been fighting for democracy, for the venezuelan people who want them to have the right to vote, an individual who has stood and is trying to keep their tps status so they're not forced back into the regime of maduro. the gentlewoman from florida, debbie wasserman schultz. >> the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding. i rise in support of this resolution because i simply do not trust this president to

truly prioritize democracy and the will of the venezuelan people. i represent one of the largest venezuelan communities in the country. many of my constituents fled brutal repression under chavez and maduro. most of them were glad to see maduro captured and face justice. and so was i. maduro is a murderous criminal who tortured, imprisoned, impoverished and oppressed his people. he stole elections, jailed his opponents, drained his nation's wealth and unleashed the largest peacetime refugee crisis in history. 8 million venezuelans driven into exile. i was glad to see maduro held accountable. and this resolution, as my colleague who just spoke, mr. mr. diaz-balart would clearly know, would not preclude operations like the one that arrested him, especially if the administration finally does what they should have already done come up with a day after plan for democracy, present a coherent strategy to congress, and make a case to the american people. but arresting maduro does not fix venezuela because

maduro did not destroy venezuela by himself, he relied on criminal affiliates who helped him cling to power. delcy rodriguez, jorge rodriguez, diosdado cabello, vladimir padrino lopez. all of them share maduro's guilt, but instead of being thrown in jail, they were left in charge. the machinery of repression was left in place, and the democratic hopes of venezuelans are being left behind. my constituents who celebrated maduro's capture are horrified to see president trump normalize relations with the same regime that forced them to flee. this president must not make the us complicit in the brutal repression of venezuelans, which continues today. yet trump continues to jeopardize the lives of venezuelan immigrants by forcing them back into this chaos. after he terminated their tps. trump has lavished praise on maduro's handpicked replacement, delcy rodriguez, who ran the regime's torture dungeons. meanwhile, he's dismissed and demeaned venezuela's democratic leaders

like maria corina machado and president elect edmundo gonzalez. in fact, president trump hasn't said one word about seeking democracy or human rights in venezuela. if congress backs military action, then democracy, stability and safety for venezuelans should be the objective. but those aren't president trump's goals. he only speaks about getting a cut of the regime's oil sales and ignores their ongoing repression. i have no illusions about the dangers this regime poses. i'm open to the idea that military action may be needed to achieve democracy. and if trump truly cared about venezuelan democracy, he has tools at his disposal. he has broad authority to defend our national security interests. he could employ covert action, enforce vigorous sanctions, support civil society groups on democracy's front lines, and take action, as he does against cartels and narco terrorists. and he could use his, quote, tremendous leverage to push for elections in human rights, because this resolution doesn't block any of that. instead,

trump is just seeking profits for the same big oil companies who propped up maduro for years. he moved on his own with no plan for democracy, and he swapped out one dictator for another and declared mission accomplished. my vote today isn't about the means that this president used to capture maduro. presidents should use the power. they have to be tough on dictators who abuse their own people. but given his utter disdain for democracy and his callous disregard for the chaos and violence to which law abiding venezuelans are being deported, i simply cannot give this president a blank check to put troops on the ground. for all we know, trump plans to deploy troops to protect the regime's oil facilities, not to liberate venezuelans. i've known maria corina machado for years, but this week i was finally able to meet her in person for the first time. she's remarkable, inspiring, and i have total faith in her selfless dedication to bring venezuela out of darkness. more importantly, venezuelans have faith in her. when we spoke, she discussed the essential

momentum the democracy movement needs and the danger of allowing this dictatorship to reinforce its grip on power. she told us conditions on the ground are dire, that we cannot allow the regime and the military militias to strengthen their hold on power. maria corina has a vision to resurrect venezuela and there is a us role to see it through. that's why it's so disturbing that her white house meeting ended with no firm commitments, no timeline for elections, and no guarantees from president trump. instead of opening a pathway to democracy, this president is focused on opening offshore accounts to hoard venezuelan oil money. so i support this resolution because of my faith in maria corina machado, not as spite of it. it is rooted in my ongoing commitment to standing resolutely with venezuelans to demand an end to this illegal regime. it is aligned with my belief that a transition to democracy, led by maria corina machado and gonzalez, must take place. i hope i'm wrong about the president's motivations. can i have an additional 30s? i hope i'm wrong about the

president's motivations, and he brings congress a real strategy to transition venezuela to to democracy. i hope he was moved by maria corina machado's vision and not just her nobel prize, but i'm a show me person, not a tell me person. and so far, president trump has shown that he's more concerned with seizing venezuela's oil than freeing venezuelans from dictatorship. hasta el final. thank you. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady reserves the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states is now running venezuela from washington. on january 3rd, the president ordered a military operation to capture nicolas maduro and install the president's hand-picked successor, delcy rodriguez, as the interim president. president trump went to war, removed a leader, and established a puppet government. the president executed this transition when the most popular opposition leader,

nobel prize winner maria corina machado, was out of the country. if he wanted to, the president could help her return to venezuela. it's telling that he is not. article one of the constitution of the united states makes it clear that congress has the sole authority to declare war. the president, in taking these actions without our consent, has trampled on the separation of powers and taken the american people into yet another war that they do not want and cannot afford. and people are wondering. they're asking, what was it for? was it to remove the socialists? no, the socialists are still in power. delcy rodriguez is a true believer in the same ideology and party that hugo chavez and nicolas maduro championed. was it to remove drug dealers in the hemisphere? no. the same venezuelan government that he says is dealing drugs are still in charge because of him. so clearly this is not about socialists and it's not about drugs. donald trump has said

that this is about oil and enriching multibillion dollar companies over the will of the american people. congress, unfortunately, has not stood up to his despotic actions. he's not listening to congress or to the american people. he's threatened military action against greenland, colombia, cuba, mexico and panama. and he's threatened to keep sidestepping congress if you will let him. at a time when americans are struggling to pay for rent, groceries and child care. they don't want us to spend billions in venezuela. they would rather we spend that money here. but somebody is getting rich. donald trump, can i get 30 more seconds? >> i yield 30 additional seconds. >> donald trump has set up offshore bank accounts in qatar outside the us system, and only he knows where the money is going. there is a $500 million slush fund that the president is controlling right now.

you're not going to benefit from that. now, i ask my colleagues who have not joined us, how long will you stand by and be on the sidelines of the most consequential decision a country can make to go to war? are we a congress or are we cowards? will you stand up for the american people and do what's right? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> it's always laughable arguments when they try to say the president is enriching himself. just as one example. in this case, you don't see him collecting a $50 million bounty for bringing in nicolas maduro, a bounty that the previous administration agreed with because he's never in it for the money. he's in it for america every single time. i would encourage them to talk to their colleague, miss wasserman schultz. ask her if things are better or worse for venezuelans today than they were under maduro. in that i'm going to yield two minutes to the another gentleman from florida.

mr. fine. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. my friend, the chairman referred to stupidity in debating this bill. i'd like to talk about hypocrisy and illiteracy. ten days before joe biden left office, he raised the bounty on nicolas maduro to $25 million. now, i don't know if my democrat colleagues thought he would go, wow, 25 million. maybe i should just turn myself in. but i'd like to believe that when they put that bounty out there, they actually believed he should be removed from office. there's an old twitter post from president biden that said, quote, trump talks tough on venezuela but admires thugs and dictators like nicolas maduro. end quote. well, guess what, mr. speaker? i think president trump showed in actions, not words, that he was determined to remove a drug lord. and that is what nicolas maduro was from power. you know, the president doesn't have to let us know every time they go and arrest somebody who's

broken the law. that's exactly what happened here. but now i want to talk about illiteracy, my friend. the chairman's talk about people not understanding what's in the bill. and before i got to congress, i used to complain about really long bills that no one read before they voted on them. well, this one six lines long and it doesn't talk about things like my colleague spoke about, like escalation. this bill deals with escalation. that's not what it does. it's six lines. and two of them say this. congress hereby directs the president to remove united states armed forces from venezuela. there aren't any there. so they proposed to have us vote on something that is irrelevant because the action they want to stop is not taking place. there's no war there. now, i think what my colleagues are are shell shocked because after all of these years of empty comments condemning maduro, empty statements by them, empty statements by joe biden talking about how bad a man he was, we finally have a president who actually went and

did something about it. that's what president trump did. we should be proud. we should be thanking. we should be supporting him for what. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> we should be voting down this resolution. i yield back. >> reserve gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i just wonder what kind of man when a woman earned the nobel peace prize. maria corina machado said that he wanted it and her trying to fight for democracy came in and he took it. he didn't earn it. what kind of man does that? i'm proud to yield. one minute to the gentleman from california. representative jimmy panetta. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. the military intervention in venezuela left us with uncertainty and instability and insecurity. look, as a veteran, i commend the military operation to remove maduro on january 3rd. but as an american, it left uncertainty for the day after

by replacing one despot with another, were uncertain as to the government, to the oil, to the cartels and to the future of democracy in venezuela. this type of military adventurism can also create instability, not just in venezuela but in the region. and that creates insecurity for the united states. as we saw this week about greenland, the president wants spheres of influence rather than stability from a rules based order. instead of standing up to china and russia, the president just wants to impress them by acting like them rather than being better than them. that's what happens when we have a president that doesn't just want his own sphere of influence, he wants his own sphere of governance, especially when it comes to putting boots on the ground. this war powers resolution will not only prevent that in venezuela without further congressional approval, it would also demonstrate that this congress can actually act like a co-equal branch of government. gentlemen, our responsibilities under the united states constitution. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.

>> gentleman from massachusetts reserves. >> mr. speaker, i. >> yield the gentleman from massachusetts. >> three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. >> gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this war powers resolution because the integrity of this institution is at question. every member of this house has a duty to uphold the constitution, systems of checks and balances by exercising its article one powers entrusted to us the executive's military exercise to capture the leader of venezuela represents one of the most blatant usurpations of congressional authority we have seen in modern times. if we ignore it, we are not merely acquisition acquiescing to executive overreach. we are rendering impotent our branch of government. thomas paine said in 1776. a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. some of my republican colleagues may feel obligated to acquiesce because it's our party

occupying the white house. it's our party who is the commander in chief. but the precedents we tolerate today will inevitably be used against us tomorrow, when the reins of power change hands. that's precisely why our loyalty must be to the constitution and not to any party. if our country wants war, then congress must vote on it. we are the voice of the people. there's a reason so many of our offices bear a prisoner of war, missing in action flag. it's a solemn reminder of the human cost of war and our obligation, not the obligation, of a single executive or a private circle of special interests to decide when to go to war. even the executive branch knows that congress had the authority, not them. do you remember the night of the invasion? it was the attorney general who explained this was just a law enforcement action, that the military was merely assisting. and that's the problem we have, because then it became obvious that we

were undertaking a military exercise. and if the unilateral use of force were not enough, the executive has compounded this abuse by seizing venezuela's oil revenues, selling them and depositing that money in us treasury controlled accounts overseas. so now the executive presumes the authority to appropriate money. that's a direct violation of the us constitution. article one, section nine, clause seven of the constitution is unambiguous. no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, there was no law. there has been no law to appropriate this money that was seized in an act of war. if we allow allow an executive to seize foreign resources and direct spending from pillaged accounts without congressional authorization, people no longer have a voice in their government, and congress's power of the purse becomes moot. if the executive believes wars justified, then let congress declare it. if the executive believes foreign assets may be

seized and spent and appropriated, then let congress appropriate them. that is how a republic functions, and i yield back my time to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> my colleagues still not talking about the six lines of the bill that says remove forces from venezuela. they're not talking about it because there are no forces in venezuela. i'm very proud to yield another two minutes to the gentleman from florida. mr. stuby. >> gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this resolution because it's nothing more than a weak and pointless attempt to attack our president and undermine our national security. we conducted a 40 minute operation to remove a drug trafficking narco terrorist. and democrats are acting like we started world war three for that brief targeted action. they now insist congress must step in and tie the president's hands. let us be clear about how ridiculous this resolution truly is. it orders the united

states to withdraw forces from venezuela. yet there are no u.s. forces in venezuela to withdraw. you cannot remove troops that don't even exist. that alone shows how unserious democrats are in this effort. they also claim the act to remove maduro was unconstitutional, which ignores article two and decades of bipartisan precedent where presidents have undertaken limited military action without a declaration of war. clinton acted in kosovo, obama acted in libya, and, most similarly, george h.w. bush captured drug trafficker manuel noriega back in 1990. no one screamed constitutional crisis then. in fact, those acts were celebrated by both sides and they were upheld by federal courts. the bottom line is that nicolas maduro is a criminal defendant charged by the united states department of justice with narco terrorism and drug trafficking offenses, including conspiring to import cocaine into the united states and related weapons charges. he has run his regime like a cartel, flooding our country with poison and destroying american

lives. this was not an act of war. it was an act of law enforcement. this resolution does nothing to protect the constitution, nothing to make america safer and nothing to stop the drugs killing our communities. it should be rejected, i yield back. >> gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> reserve. >> gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> is speaker. i yield 1.5 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. >> gentleman from texas is recognized. >> oil over democracy. trump has made clear his priorities, accepting ruthless suppression by maduro's comrades, so long as the oil profits flow to him. as the self-described acting president of venezuela, with one major oil company describing the country as uninvestable, trump has absolutely no winning strategy to secure any benefits for the american people. he doesn't

just want to be king of america, he wants to be king of the universe. he wants to be a putin or a xi, disrupting the global order that bipartisan american leaders made possible to prevent another world war imperialism, starting wars around the world wherever trump's latest whim takes him will not make america great again. it will make us much less safe to found this country. americans got rid of one despotic king. we don't need another one. instead, we must demand an accountable president by adopting this important resolution and asserting the power of congress, i yield back. >> gentleman from massachusetts reserves. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i would just remind my colleague that president trump has yet to start any war in

either administration. his fight every day is protect the american homeland, protect the people of the united states of america. and he's done a damn good job. i reserve. >> gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> no further reserve. i'm ready to close. >> gentleman from new york reserves. gentleman from massachusetts is. >> recognized here, mr. speaker. >> gentleman from massachusetts reserves. >> so i'm recognized. i go first, right? >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for closure. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have still not gotten an answer to the only question that matters today. you know, why did we strike venezuela spending taxpayer money and putting american troops in harm's way to replace maduro with his own vice president? i mean, someone who is an illegitimate ruler who was just as ruthless and evil as maduro. i don't know why we did that. what was the point? not a single one of my colleagues can answer that question because they have no answer. they know, but they know voting for this bill is right. and if people

want to put our troops in harm's way, if they genuinely, genuinely believe more military action may be necessary in the future, if that's what you believe, whether to defend oil fields or to do something else, then you should come. you shouldn't just pound the damn lectern and wave the flag. you need to come before this entire chamber and move a bill to authorize the use of military force. my friends should have the guts and the backbone to put up an authorization for the use of military force on the floor. spell out the mission. spell out the objectives. tell the american people how long it lasts, what it costs, why it matters, and how we get a legitimate democratic government in venezuela. i mean, have the guts to vote. that's all this bill is requiring. but don't give me this bs about how, oh, before the strikes, it was premature to vote and now it's too late. i've seen this movie before, mr. speaker. it always starts with the white house telling us it'll be quick, it'll be clean, it'll be over in a matter of days. and then months later, years later, you get troops deployed, you get

kids coming home in caskets, and you get taxpayers paying for endless quagmires that never end. and the same people are here on the floor telling us we're premature, are crying wolf, are suddenly nowhere to be found. i mean, that's the truth, mr. speaker, wars are easy to start, but they're hard as hell to stop. and this resolution ought to pass. no matter what you believe about further military involvement in venezuela. and what it says plainly is that if the president is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and a constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval. the people we represent did not send us here to be potted plants, while the white house sleepwalks us into another mess. if this administration wants to escalate, make this case to the american people. get consent through their elected representatives, follow the constitution. and let me tell you what i think. i think this was also that donald trump could get a good headline. i think it was so he could distract from the lousy economy

and the fact that he's still covering up the epstein files. and i think it's about theft, because the oil being taken from the people of venezuela is being sold off and used to finance a slush fund and cut or controlled by, you guessed it, donald trump. but i don't think i've ever seen such a brazen example of corruption in my life. the president of the united states put american troops in harm's way so he could steal oil from venezuela and deposit it into his own pocket. i think it's a disgraceful thing to do. it is time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grow a spine, obey their oath and do their damn jobs. you should vote yes on this resolution. whether you support president trump's actions or you disagree with them all, this is simply all this says is simply that if he wants to expand military operations, he has to come to congress. it is that simple. it is not complicated. this is about the constitution. this is about our oath. this is about representing the people who sent us here. i mean, to do

anything less is a dereliction of our duty. i can't even believe that this is controversial. the idea that somehow we don't want to vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, whether it's in venezuela or anywhere else. what is wrong with my colleagues who think this is such a big leap that this is somehow not justified? read the constitution, and with that, i reserve my. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, you know, last time i was on this floor, i had a question, and i still have that same question. and i heard members on the other side talk about the president's trying to protect the american people. in fact, i heard someone and i understand why nicolas maduro was indicted. i'm going to ask the chairman again. i don't know whether he wants to answer this question, but if that's true, why did the president of the united states pardon a

former leader of her of honduras, former president who was convicted of drug trafficking, who bragged about shoving drugs up the noses of the gringos? why did the president of the united states pardon him? >> you yielding me time? >> yeah, you can answer that question. >> gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> president never explained it to me. maybe he was just trying to make room for maduro and his wife. yeah. >> okay. that's funny. it's because he does not care. it never was about drugs. it was always about oil. that's why he doesn't care. that's why he took the nobel peace prize from someone else who earned it. he doesn't care. he cares about one person himself and enriching his family and his friends. mr. speaker, this war powers resolution introduced by representative mcgovern, would put an immediate end to this

administration's reckless military interventions in venezuela. we cannot allow the constitution to be usurped by one president who believes he can unilaterally declare war, invade a sovereign nation, and buck the rules based international system we helped build. if the house fails to check president trump's aggression today, it will not end in venezuela. i know the white house is paying close attention to this vote, and if we don't stand now and reassert our article one power over matters of war and peace, we will have abdicated one of our most solemn responsibilities and reduce ourselves to a rubber stamp and become expired. the duma in russia. our constituents sent us here to deliver on lowering their costs. not time has expired. while the president keeps doing what he pleases. and with that, let us make sure that we pass this resolution, and i yield. back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from florida is

recognized. >> mr. speaker, let me answer some of the questions that my colleagues put up. why did president trump take maduro to protect the homeland of the united states of america, as he has done with action after action after action? the same reason that two presidents put a warrant, a bounty on nicolas maduro, not just president trump. also president biden. that's why nicolas maduro was snatched up because of his poisoning of the people of the united states of america. again, something can be true and also be true about another action and another action and another action. it was because of the bounty. it was because of the warrant. it was because of the drugs that he was bringing to the united states of america. it was because of his partnership with china, iran, russia to be their foothold in the western hemisphere for

their nefarious activities. it was because of the illegal shipments of oil that they were moving on russian ships to china that were coming out of venezuela. it was because of a lot of things that this took place. and does the president have a plan for the future? 100% he does. free and fair elections. freedom for the people of venezuela. ask the people of venezuela if that's what they want. ask the people of venezuela if they're better today than they were before president trump snatched up maduro. they'll tell you they are. they're more free today, and they're hoping for more and more freedom each and every day. president trump has brought hope to our homeland by protecting this homeland that has been ignored for so long. and he's brought to hope to so many others around the globe. the people of venezuela, people

across the middle east, people across europe, people in place after place because of his actions. he is the peace president. he's proven it over and over again. he has never been the president of forever wars. he's yet to create one. he's only worked in limited operations that protect the homeland of the united states of america, and done the best job of it in the history of the united states of america. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. >> all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the order of the house of january 21st, 2026, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution. the question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in my opinion, the nos have it. the concurrent resolution is not. >> agreed to. >> speaker. the yeas and nays, please. >> the ayes and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise, a sufficient number

having risen. the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause eight of rule 20. further proceedings on this question will be postponed. >> education committee setting up. how are things i'm doing. >> right. >> doing right. good. >> you ready for the. >> snow? that is ready. >> somebody was saying you folks. >> are on.

>> for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1009, i call up h.r. 6359 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. >> the clerk will report the title of the bill. >> union calendar number three, 82 h.r. 6359. a bill to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for pregnant students, and for other purposes. >> pursuant to house resolution 1009, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and workforce, printed in the bills adopted, and the bill is amended as considered read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and workforce or their respective designees. the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. each will control 30

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.r. 6359. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the pregnant students rights act, legislation that affirms a simple but powerful principle expecting mothers should be encouraged to pursue their education like any other student, pregnant students often receive incorrect guidance or no guidance at all on how to navigate classes while pregnant. in many cases, women feel pressured to end their pregnancies or risk academic failure despite

protections that exist now under federal law, the pregnant students rights act requires schools to clearly communicate what accommodations and protections pregnant and parenting students are entitled to. that includes excused absences for medical needs, the ability to make up missed work, and protection from discrimination and retaliation. more specifically, this bill requires information to be emailed to students at least once each academic year and appearance student handbooks at orientation at student health or counseling centers, and on the institution's website. when students know their rights, they are empowered to stay enrolled, stay engaged, and succeed. this legislation

doesn't burden colleges. it simply increases transparency by helping schools communicate consistently and avoid confusion or unnecessary disputes. this is a common sense, compassionate measure that promotes transparency and ensures pregnant students have the support they need to create a better future for themselves and their child. mr. speaker, let's cherish life for both the child and his or her mother, who dreams of academic success. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the pregnant students rights act and stand up for the dignity, opportunity and educational success of every student. i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in

opposition to h.r. 6359, the pregnant students rights act. this bill requires schools to provide pregnant students with information about on campus and community resources and accommodations to assist them in carrying a baby to term while they pursue an education. unfortunately, instead of sharing unbiased and comprehensive information, this bill requires schools to distribute only partial information about a student's rights under title nine and selective information and resources that solely encourage students to carry a pregnancy to term. it provides no information about rights and accommodations for students who may find themselves in a medical situation that requires an abortion. now, repeating the idea that comprehensive information must be provided does not make it true. title nine entitles the students to the information, but this bill only requires some of that

information to be provided. now, while the bill's proponents continue to assert that students are unaware of their rights, they provide no justification or evidence that students are any more or less aware of their rights or accommodations specific to carrying a child to term. if we're concerned about students who do not have a full understanding of their rights, and we should provide comprehensive all of the information necessary to address their concerns, that shielding students from health information, resources and rights that are available to them. republicans are denying them the ability to choose what may be best for them and their families. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i just have to go back to the same argument that we had in committee. we don't prohibit schools from giving a full panoply of information, our

concerns that they haven't been pregnant, students have been left without full information, full information that comes and is by law, required under title nine on all aspects of medical care, of counseling, of, of opportunity. but sadly, sadly, that's been left out as far as saying if you are pregnant and you want to continue as pregnant in this school, we're going to support you in that. title nine gives all of the information. we're not going to be redundant. we're just making sure that you also include young lady, if you're pregnant and you want to continue in school, we're going to do our best to help you and provide all the resources. i just wish we could catch hold of this. and so i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from iowa, the sponsor of this

common sense, compassionate and helpful bill. miss hinson. >> gentlelady from iowa, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the chairman for yielding and his excellent work in shepherding this bill through the education and workforce committee. i rise today to support my bill, the pregnant students rights act. this is a common sense piece of legislation because when roe versus wade was rightfully overturned in 2022, the next chapter of the pro-life movement began. we were all given the opportunity to help strengthen our support for unborn babies and for new moms. as a mom of two, this issue is personal for me because i know that when you're pregnant, there are about a million questions that are going through your head at any given time. you've got the doctor's appointments, you've got new financial responsibilities, and pregnant students have so much on their plate as they're working to balance school and have a healthy pregnancy at the same time. so i think it's just unacceptable that so often they choose between finishing their

education and having their baby. despite the title nine protections that are already in place. so under title nine, pregnant students have the right to stay in school and finish their education and achieve their career goals. however, the academic disparity does exist because of limited resources and sometimes support for pregnant students. these women may fear institutional reprisals, reprisal, loss of an athletic scholarship, ornegativr academic opportunities and their standing. so those fears and anxieties are not just unjust to women, but they are a poor reflection of how our higher education institutes are treating pregnant students, higher education institutions and universities have a responsibility to empower all their students, all of them to succeed, including pregnant students. they deserve to be treated with respect and surrounded with care and love.

and that's what this piece of legislation is designed to do. i have visited pregnancy resource centers in iowa and met with so many of those who have dedicated their cause to life, many of whom have traveled right here to washington, d.c. for the march for life this weekend. maybe a snowy march for life this weekend. and it has been inspiring to me to see all of the pro-life community spring into action to really help our expecting mothers and their babies to thrive, because that is what this movement is all about. it's about recognizing the sanctity of every life and valuing life at every stage. it is crucial that pregnant women know that they have people standing behind them, resources available to them, and that they are entitled to these accommodations on campuses. completing an education as a mother is not only empowering for the student, but this is vital to ensuring a strong future for her child for our next generation. so the pregnant students rights act

amends the higher education act to require our colleges and universities to clearly distribute information about pregnant students rights and available resources through student handbooks, emails, websites, orientations, while promoting accountability when those rights are violated for our students. and it's troubling that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so dug in on their pro-abortion stances and agenda that they would oppose providing pregnant students with information on their rights and resources available to them to continue their education and have a healthy pregnancy. supporting women who choose life should not be a partizan issue. every woman who completes her studies while pregnant strengthens our families, our communities, and our workforce. so i hope my colleagues across the aisle will help to vote to empower pregnant women and support this vital, life affirming legislation. this bill is a step in the right direction to create a culture of life in our

society, and a step that we must take as we continue to pursue policies that help our families to grow and thrive from iowa and beyond, across the country. mr. speaker, i yield back. >> gentleman from iowa reserves. gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia. miss macbeth. >> gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. and thank you so much to the ranking member of the education and workforce committee, mr. bobby scott. thank you. like so many women, women across the country, i struggled for so many years to get pregnant. my husband and i, we tried everything that we could do to start a family of our own. so being a mom for me was what i always wanted to do, and i wanted to be the best mom that i could be. when we finally succeeded, i remember that i had never really been so happy. all the prayers i prayed to god, i finally felt like my prayers were answered. the

moment i prayed for for years was happening, and i wanted to tell everyone that i was going to be a mom. but one day i woke up covered in blood. it's hard to describe the agony of a miscarriage, to describe the heartbreak, the utter helplessness, and you are just. you fall directly into pain and despair. after my second miscarriage, i wondered if god ever had plans for me to be a mom. so when i got pregnant a third time, i was completely overjoyed. but at four months, i was rushed to the hospital where i learned i had suffered a fetal demise. that means a stillborn. my doctors thought it would be safer to end the

pregnancy naturally. so for two weeks i carried my stillborn child within my womb, within my belly. for two weeks, i carried that lost pregnancy. two weeks i carried my dead fetus as they waited for me to go into labor. i never ended up going into labor on my own. when the doctors finally induced me, i faced the pain of childbirth without the hope for a living child. this story is uniquely mine. but it's not just my story. millions of women in our country, women in this room, women all throughout america. women that you people here you actually know when you love them, have suffered a

miscarriage or stillbirth. congress should be making sure that women are aware of all of their rights, not just cherry picking the ones that we want to highlight over others. to make a point about abortion. so for the women in your life whose stories that you don't even know, for the women across the country whose lives you may not even understand the choices and the environments that they live in. >> an additional minute. an additional minute. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> and for the women in america who have gone through things, some people can never even imagine, i asked my colleagues to vote no on this misguided bill. it's not that we're not trying to empower women who are making choices during their pregnancy. that's not at all.

but let's make sure that they are empowered with every tool and every resource and every bit of information they deserve to make the choices they need to make about their lives, their bodies, and their pregnancies. this body should not be determining what decisions they make for themselves. we talk about god. god gives us choice. god gives us choice to make the decisions that we believe are best for ourselves. we have no right to take those choices away from them. so i'm asking every colleague on the other side of the aisle. i've been there. i've had to make choices. so let's do the right thing and make sure that every woman has the full breadth of the ability to make the choices that she needs to make, and i yield. >> gentlelady yields. gentleman from virginia reserves, the gentleman from michigan is

recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and my dear friend and colleague from georgia. as as you've discussed, that tragic story with me before, my heart does break. but having experienced that in my own personal family as well, i understand what you're saying. i'm just not capable, i guess, of communicating that this bill is affording all the questions to be answered, all of the issues to be addressed, but also to give pregnant women who are blessed to be able to continue caring, to completion, the opportunity to also know that their academic opportunity will continue as well. that's all we're attempting to do. so my heart breaks with that story. but my heart also says we want to make sure. and that's why i

appreciate representative hinson's bill, that it expands the opportunity and information that's given. and so now i yield and privilege to yield. two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, chair of the congressional family caucus, also a member of the education workforce committee. miss miller. >> gentlelady from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 6359, the pregnant students rights act. college can be a challenging environment, especially for pregnant women. many feel forced to choose between motherhood and their education. nearly 30% of all abortions in the united states are performed on women in college. title nine already protects the right of pregnant women to stay in school. however, many of them face a lack of resources and support.

some even feel fear, punishment, and a loss of scholarships simply for carrying their baby to full term. while taking classes. the pregnant students rights act requires colleges and universities to inform pregnant women of their rights and protections. this includes information on modified classes, modified class schedules, or excused absences. this bill also requires universities to inform pregnant women how to file a complaint with the department of education if their title nine protections are violated. let me be clear no woman should ever have to choose between finishing her education or experiencing the joy of motherhood. and while i to my colleague on the other side, i have had a similar situation also, but i do want to thank her for acknowledging that the life within her was a baby. women are fully capable

of raising children and getting an education at the same time. i know because i did it. thank you to congresswoman henson for your leadership of the pregnant students rights act. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields. gentleman from michigan reserves. gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from washington state, mrs. randall. >> gentlelady from washington is recognized. >> thank you. ranking member scott, i rise today in strong opposition to hr 6359, a bill that claims to protect pregnant students but actually mandates they get less, not more, information about their rights. if the sponsor of this bill and the majority party actually believed in supporting student parents, then they would take real action, not just grandstand on the house floor,

because the march for life is this weekend. the bill before us today requires the dissemination of incomplete information, but it also comes after house republicans have worked alongside the trump regime to dismantle and weaken the department of education and protections for students who file complaints of around title nine violations. among other things it has that has dismantled subsidized loan programs and financial aid that has decimated medicaid, the number one payer for births in this country, in order to pay for tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and fund isis violent reign in our communities. if we believed in supporting student parents, we would put more money into childcare subsidies, more money into financial aid, more money into food assistance so that the women in college, the people who are students who get pregnant, who have a tough decision to make, would have

all of the resources and support they need to make the decision that is right for them. it's not our job to tell a student what decision is right for them. it's not our job to tell any high school graduate that they need to go to college, right? i hear republicans say that all the time. i tend to agree. i believe that students deserve all the options and all the support that to make the choice that is right for them. but mandating incomplete information while gutting the programs that would allow a pregnant student to choose to stay pregnant, to choose to complete school is a fallacy. it is. it is political theater. and it is doing a disservice to the students we are purporting to support. i have had a chance to work with a lot of students who have become pregnant, both from the time i was in junior high when a friend of mine had a pregnancy scare, to a time when i was in college, to being a volunteer in the bay area,

where i was on a rapid response line in case someone needed to take a bus 3.5 hours from their college campus into the city, because that's the only place that they could access either maternity care or obgyn care, or access abortion care. because we have not funded health care in rural communities across the country, because we have gutted programs that provide actual support for pregnant people. this is a joke. this. let's make sure they get an email with all the information. it is unserious. and for that, i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this bill and to take serious action to support students, pregnant or not. thank you. >> gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to make a few factual comments in response. i think also provides some information relative to my colleagues previous comments.

republicans just passed working families tax cuts, which gave american families the largest tax cut in american history. under the bill, the typical family will get up to $10,900 in additional take home pay. households earning less than $100,000 would get a 12% tax cut, compared to 2nd july 2025. and equally as important, if not more so, the child tax credit. the child tax credit will double to $2,200 for more than 40 million american families. that is taking consideration. the children that come from pregnancy that are born, we're not leaving them without resources. the working families tax cuts promotes life by putting hardworking families first, ensuring they keep their hard

earned money in their pockets for their necessary uses. and with that, i reserve reserves. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. first, to suggest that that big ugly bill gave tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, but in the meanwhile cut health care and medicaid snap benefits and ran up trillions of dollars in additional debt. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from over 50 organizations representing civil rights labor organizations, youth advocates, women's rights, reproductive rights, and others. it says, in part, the students. the pregnant students rights act is a i describe it as a thinly veiled anti abortion law that would not address key barriers to pregnant students

educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes. they further say that this bill purports to protect the rights of pregnant students, and fall far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children. it points out that if you really want to be serious, there are some things we could actually do to support the students. one like explicit protections under title nine, nondiscrimination protections at the state and local level, accessible and affordable child care, access to early childhood education and pre-kindergarten services, transportation services, and others that would actually actually make a difference. mr. speaker, we have. constantly heard that they are providing comprehensive information and not amending title nine. the fact is, title nine does have

comprehensive rights that are listed under title nine that are comprehensive. this bill, however, only requires partial information about those rights. when only partial information is given that could have fatal consequences to women. tragically, women have died because of anti-abortion legislation that have passed in some states that require women to be close to death before they can have what could have been earlier, a safe abortion. if they mistime it and get closer to death than they thought. many have actually died in those circumstances. legislators voted for those laws. and we have the. we have to note that we should not allow colleges to withhold information that could save women's lives. so i would hope that this bill would not pass under those under that situation. and i reserve the balance of my time. >> without objection, the

information requested will be entered into the record and the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i would like consent to enter a list of significant pro-family, pro-life medical community members, research family, research members, and students. for the record, in support of the pregnant students rights act. >> without objection. >> i reserve. >> gentleman. reserves. gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon. miss bonamici. >> gentleman gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, ranking member scott, for your leadership and for yielding. mr. speaker, i oppose this bill because, among other reasons, the information that is required, it's incomplete and it's biased. as written, the pregnant students rights

act is unfairly limited regarding the information it requires colleges to provide to students and the students it chooses to support. it does not include information about comprehensive family planning resources, and it only supports pregnant students who carry a baby to term. simply put, the bill fails to support any student with a different pregnancy related outcome. i, like my colleague from georgia, had a wanted pregnancy. i was past the first trimester when i had an ultrasound and the doctor said, this is not viable and not a viable pregnancy, so they sent me to the hospital to have a procedure. now, my colleagues might think that's terrible, but had i been in a post dobbs world or state where that wasn't possible, i could have just been made to wait and risk my reproductive health. i went in to have to have two healthy children because i had that procedure. the intent of this bill is clear. mr. speaker, it's clear from the text. it's clear from the debate, and it's

certainly clear from the timing. it is another attempt to have politicians interfere in the intensely personal decision of when and whether to have a child, a decision that should be made only by the pregnant student, not by members of congress. in the wake of dobbs, many states have prohibited or tried to prohibit health care providers and health plans from offering or covering certain reproductive health care services. these anti-abortion efforts have disproportionately harmed some students whose access to services and information are affected by their geographical barriers, depending on where they are in college, pregnant and parenting students deserve access to a full range of family planning resources and reproductive health care options that keep them healthy and on track for academic success, regardless of where they go to college. and for this reason, mr. speaker, at the appropriate time, i will offer a motion to recommit this

bill back to the committee. if the house rules permitted, i would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. my amendment would make clear that institutions of higher education will also provide medically accurate and comprehensive information and resources about all reproductive health care services, including contraception and abortion rights. the biased anti-choice effort underpinning this bill will make it harder for students to make informed decisions about what is best for them, promoting partizan legislation that fails to address the full health care needs of students does not promote academic success. again, mr. speaker, this is a decision that belongs to the pregnant student, not to members of congress. so i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. >> without objection. >> and i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields. gentleman from virginia reserves. gentleman from michigan is

recognized. >> i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker. >> the gentleman reserves. gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since the supreme court overturned roe v wade, state abortion bans have undermined health care for pregnant women, causing women to experience life threatening health conditions and complications. with some women tragically losing their lives because of laws that legislators voted for. now, house republicans are going to make things worse by limiting students access to information about available resources, including information about their right to receive accommodations and protections under federal civil rights laws available to pregnant and parenting students on college campuses. women should have access to all relevant information so they can make informed decisions about their future. requiring schools to

provide only some information that encourages students to carry a pregnancy to term. this bill could unduly endanger students health by keeping them in the dark about their rights and resources available to them. now, the supporters keep saying that they are not amending title nine, which entitles students to all of this information. they keep ignoring the fact that this bill only requires that some, not all of that important information be provided. repeating the misrepresentation does not make it true. mr. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of my time. >> gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, in closing, i'd like to reemphasize that this bill is about ensuring pregnant

students know the rights given to them under title nine, which cover all of the concerns that my colleagues, with all due respect, on the other side of the aisle, say they want included. title nine includes all of that. we want students to know the rights given to them under title nine without creating excessive regulations or requirements for colleges universities. despite what some of my colleagues have said today, the pregnant students rights act doesn't promote a certain viewpoint or ideology. it simply affirms a basic principle. and that principle is pregnant. students deserve to know their rights when pursuing an education. i don't believe that to be true radical, mr. speaker, and i don't believe the american people do either. in fact, for years,

many of my democrat colleagues acknowledged that abortion is a serious and difficult decision and supported efforts to ensure women were not forced into it by a lack of resources or support. they joined in passing legislation to help women who choose to continue their pregnancies. yet today, some of those efforts are being undermined unless amendments that explicitly promote abortion are included. it's deeply disappointing that some of my democrat colleagues have chosen to turn this straightforward transparency bill into an abortion debate, implying that support for pregnant students in contingent is contingent on including pro abortion provisions. why must an innocent baby ever be seen as an enemy or obstacle to

success? this bill also does not provide medical advice or dictate what specific resources colleges and universities may list. for that reason, i would encourage those who oppose this legislation on those grounds to carefully reread the bill's plain language. we all know that when individuals know their rights, they're able to make informed decisions that are best for them and their families and their futures. this is why i urge all my colleagues to vote yes. and with that, i yield back. >> gentleman from michigan yields. all time for debate has expired pursuant to house resolution 1009. the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed? no. the ayes have it. third, reading. >> a bill to require institutions of higher

education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for pregnant students, and for other purposes. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. >> the clerk will report the motion. >> miss bonamici of oregon moves to recommit the bill. h.r. 6359, to the committee on education and workforce. >> pursuant to clause two, b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the nos have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. >> the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number, having risen the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause eight of rule 20. further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to

clause eight of rule 20. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 7147, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. >> h.r. 7147, a bill making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30th, 2026, and for other purposes. >> the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15 minute vote.

january 7th, 2023. kevin mccarthy becomes speaker of the house. 16 days later, jack smith issues a subpoena for his phone records. phone records from two years prior for a two month time

frame, election day 2020 to january 7th, 2021. jack smith and the biden justice department get the phone records of the top republican in government. the guy is second in line to the president. they know who he called, who called him when the call took place and how long it lasted. you can pattern individuals life. they know who the speaker talked to before, big votes, who we talked to after big votes. when he calls his colleagues, when he calls his family. and to add insult to injury, they go to the judge with the subpoena for a gag order on the carrier at&t. don't tell your customer, the speaker of the house, that you just gave his phone calls to jack smith and joe biden. and here's the kicker. they say to the court, we need this gag order because he's a flight risk. someone might tamper with witnesses or with evidence.

are you kidding me? the speaker of the house is going to run. they got my phone records for two and a half years. even the democrats said this was wrong. but of course, we shouldn't be surprised. democrats have been going after president trump for ten years for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did. over the next few hours, we're going to hear a lot of yelling and screaming, i assume, from the other side. but we should never forget what took place. what they did to the guy. we, the people, elected president twice. it all started in 2016 when they spied on his campaign. the clinton campaign hired the law firm perkins cooley, who hired the public relations firm fusion gps, who hired a foreigner, christopher steele, to put together the fake dossier. bunch of garbage in that document. but that was used by jim comey's

fbi. and we all know jim comey. he was the guy who just last year strolling along the beach when the good lord had the waves wash up on shore seashells in the formation of 86, 47. that guy took that dossier to the fisa court, lied to the court, and then spied on the other parties campaign. this, of course, led to the mueller investigation two and a half years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, $30 million to find nothing, no conspiracy, no coordination whatsoever. then it was impeachment. one anonymous whistleblower where we couldn't even know who was bringing the charge against the guy. they were trying to take it. the guy we elected. who were they trying to kick out of office? we couldn't know. secret hearings in the bunker in the basement of the capitol. again, nothing. then it was impeachment, too. no secret hearings here because

they didn't have any hearings. it was a snap. impeaching. and the senate trial actually took place after president trump wasn't in office. then, of course, it was alvin bragg who said before he got elected, district attorney that there was no case here. then he gets elected and changes his mind. when the left starts pressured him to go after president trump, he hires michael colangelo, all former democratic national committee consultant. and the number three guy at the department of justice. and then, of course, it's bonnie and nathan. bonnie willis and nathan wade and fulton county, georgia. we actually depose mr. wade on the most interesting depositions i've sat through. we said to him, you know, you bill taxpayers in georgia, thousands of dollars for meetings in d.c. with the january six committee and with the biden administration. and we asked him some questions. would you talk to mr. way?

he couldn't remember. we said, where did you meet? capital g, the white house, where did you meet? couldn't remember that either. we said, were these meetings in person? on the phone. would you have a zoom meeting? couldn't remember. couldn't remember. couldn't remember. we finally just asked him, did you really come to d.c. and meet people? he said, oh, yeah. i came and i build the taxpayers. i know i came. no idea who we talked to or what he did. and then there was the raid on president trump's home, you know, where they searched baron's room and the first lady's closet. in our deposition was steve and dan takano, head of the fbi washington field office. he told us none of the normal process, none of the normal protocol was followed in the investigation. he said, first of all, the case was run out of dc. normally you run it out of the miami field office. no, no, no, we're going to run out of dc. he said he recommended and the

people in the fbi at the time in the washington field office recommended they give the president notice before they do the search, or at least when they got there before they start the search, called the president's lawyers ask them to come there and meet them and conduct the search together. again, the answer from main justice was no. which brings us back to mr. smith on november 18th, 2020, to three days after president trump announces he's running for president. attorney general garland names jack smith, special counsel. one of the first things mr. smith does is put on his team the very people responsible for the raid on president trump's home, the very people. and then jack smith also puts on his team the people responsible for getting the phone records of dozens of members of congress, people like thomas windham, who when we deposed him, took the

fifth 71 times. we've actually referred him to the justice department for obstructing our investigation. jack smith then gets a gag order in his investigation on president trump from judge chacon without filing a single affidavit with the court from a witness or a potential witness that they felt threatened by statements from the president. stop and think about it. jack smith restricts the speech of the former president while he's a candidate for president. thank goodness mr. smith was slapped down on appeal and the order was changed. in fact, just two weeks ago, the washing and post editorial page, jack smith would have blown a hole in the first amendment to read two sentences from this. mr. smith's. i'm unconcerned about interfering in the democrat process by seeking to muzzle a candidate for high office. three appellate judges, all nominated by democrat presence, ruled that mr. smith's gag

proposed gag order in fringed on president trump's first amendment rights. and of course, they did. and this wasn't the only time mr. smith lost in court in the classified documents case in miami. judge cannon held that mr. smith was not permitted to be special counsel. jack smith was never properly appointed. in fact, he couldn't be properly appointed because he was never confirmed by the senate for any position in the executive branch as the law requires. here's what judge cardin stated. quote, the special counsel's position effectively usurps that important legislative authority transfer transferring it to a head of department and in the process is threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers. and of course, july 1st, 20, 24, the united states supreme court ruled that president trump had immunity for actions taken in his official capacity as the president.

one month later, after after this decision by the supreme court, jack smith files a superseding indictment on august 27, 2020. for mr. smith. doesn't stop there. he does something unprecedented. on october 2nd, he files a motion with the court before president trump's defense counsel has even responded to the indictment. everyone knows the normal process is the government indicts. the defense responds with some motions, and then the government responds to the defense. but mr. smith skips the second step and the brief that he files is 165 pages, almost four times the court limit. even liberal judge chuck in who's given jack smith everything he's asked for in the course of this investigation. even she called it atypical and irregular. now, why would jack smith do that? why would he abandoned proper procedure? why would he ignore court rules?

why would he do that? because he's running out of time. there's an election around the corner. it's coming in 33 days. and he's got to get president trump. he's got to stop president trump from running. tie him up in court. he's got to get to trial or at a minimum, insert in 165 page politico document into the presidential campaign. it was always about politics. the good news is the american people saw through it. they saw through it for so long, the left has controlled so much in this country, left control, big media left control, big tech, the left controlled academe mill, hollywood. certainly the democrat party. and i think all too much the federal bureaucracy. but the left doesn't control we the people. and in spite of the left and the weaponization efforts of jim comey, alvin bragg, bonnie

willis, and jack smith, we the people saw through it all. and we elected president trump twice before. before turning to the ranking member for his opening statement, i would just ask unanimous, unanimous consent to enter into the record the washington post editorial jack smith would have blown a hole in the first amendment. with that, i yield to the gentleman from maryland. well, thank you kindly, mr. chairman. i want to start by recognizing the presence of four american heroes here today, four of the hundreds of officers who defended us on january six, 20, 21. michael fanone actually, cornell daniel hodges and harry dunn. and i thank them for being here today. mr. smith, thank you for appearing before the american people. i'm glad that the committee is finally granting you the same chance to report your findings to the american people that every other special counsel investigating an american president has had. the good chairman started by

saying it's all about the politics. well, maybe for them, but for us it's all about the rule of law and who's going to stand by the rule of law and who's going to oppose it. and, mr. smith, you're one of america's great prosecutors for nearly three decades, you worked for justice under both republicans and democrats. it's the manhattan d.a. office where you prosecuted sex crimes and domestic violence cases, the eastern district of new york, where you prosecuted murderers, rapists, gang bangers and other violent criminals leading the public integrity section at the department of justice. you brought prosecutions against corrupt public officials across the political spectrum when you went to the hague as chief prosecutor in the kosovo trial, you prosecuted war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated against thousands of innocent victims. while others may have devoted their lives to corrupt

self-enrichment. you have devoted your life to the rule of law and to public service. you've never been prosecuted for anything. you've never been convicted of anything. as far as i can tell, you've never even been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding over the course of your multi-decade career. but donald trump says you're a criminal and you belong in prison. he says you belong in prison, not because you did anything wrong. mind you, but because you did everything right. you pursued the facts, you followed the law, you stuck with extreme caution to every rule of professional response ability. you had the audacity to do your job. everybody here knows what you did wrong in donald trump's eyes and why he says you belong in prison. you found, and i quote from your sworn testimony before the

committee, you found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that president trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power when asked whether you believe the evidence was enough to obtain a criminal conviction against donald trump at trial, you had a one word answer. yes. when asked if donald trump was responsible for the violence that took place at the capitol on january six, you said our view of the evidence was that he caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him, you found that trump knew he had lost the election. how will his own attorney general, william barr, repeatedly told him so and described all of trump's theories as b.s. trump's top campaign advisers told him he lost the election. vice president pence told him he lost the election. more than 60 federal state in

court decisions, including eight rendered by judges he appointed to the bench, rejected every outlandish election fraud and corruption claim that he made trump himself even privately acknowledged it, gesturing to joe biden on tv and saying, quote, can you believe i lost to that f ing guy? he knew he lost, but he threw everything into his big lie, which some people, even in this room to this day, will stand by and swear by. well, when the big lie wasn't enough to convince officials like georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger, rather a republican, to commit election fraud and just find trump 11,780 votes when it wasn't enough to convince trump's doj to, quote, just call the election corrupt and leave the rest to me and the house republicans when it wasn't enough to force vice president mike pence to announce and then exercise lawless powers to

reject electoral college votes and use counterfeit slates to anoint trump, the winner, that's when trump incited mass violence on january 6th. well, more than 140 officers were being brutally assaulted by trump's mob while rioters beat them with flagpoles and sprayed them with chemical agents and crushed them in doorways. and while they chanted hang mike pence and chased the vice president out of the capitol, trump and his team worked the phones, calling not the national guard, which was under the direct unilateral control of donald trump, but calling members of congress, urging them to delay certification and to nullify the election results spells special counsel. smith you pursued the facts. you followed every applicable law, ethics rule, and doj regulation. your decisions were reviewed by the public integrity section.

you acted based solely on the facts. the opposite of donald trump, who now is purporting to take over the department of justice. he's in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal revenge. and he doesn't deny it. her colleagues have complained about the special counsel's review of all records, which are phone records like a phone bill showing only the timing and duration of calls and containing no content, no substance whatsoever from the calls. but those records were lawfully subpoenaed because donald trump made those members of congress relevant to the investigation. it was trump who chose to call them to advance his criminal scheme as you testified, mr. smith, if donald trump had chosen to call a number of democratic senators, we would have gotten total records for them to. i trust, our colleagues get the

point, because america certainly gets the point. there is much mr. smith still can't talk about that. we know he badly wants to. his investigation developed what he calls powerful evidence that trump stole documents containing our country's most sensitive secrets, hoarded them in the ballroom rooms and the bathrooms of his well trafficked mar a lago social club. he showed them off to visitors, and then he obstructed a federal investigation by instructing his attorney to pluck out anything really bad before turning materials over to the fbi and having his stuff delete, incriminate, adding security tape footage. but today, we're not going to hear a lot about that because you were gagged by an absurd judicial order rendered faithfully by trump's most servile and sycophantic appointee to the federal bench. judge eileen cannon. this order not only blocks release of volume two of your report, which is unprecedented about the classified documents scam. it also gags you from discussing

the report or its contents with us with america. so we don't know what's in it, but it must be pretty devastating because donald trump is desperate to keep mr. smith or any other doj official for all time from ever releasing it to congress and to the american people. now, mr. smith, if any of our colleagues foolishly choose to attack you and vilify you today, and i know that's not going to happen from some serious prosecutors over there like mr. knot and mr. schmitt who understand what federal prosecutors do and what the rule of law means. but if anybody decides to attack you person, they will only be revealing own ignorance of what prosecutors do in their own indifference to what the rule of law requires in america. they will only be stroking the wounded ego of a lawless, twice impeached, convicted felon. president who not only unleashed a mob against congress and his

own vice president, but is now pardoned and released into our communities. hundreds of extremists inside recklessness and cop beating felons who have proceeded to commit dozens more crimes against the american people since they were pardoned. mr. smith, i understand you are a long distance marathon runner. i read that you're a triathlete who's done more than 100 triathlons in nine ironman competitions. you are in the fight for justice and the rule of law. for the longest since for the long haul. and i thank you for that. and we should all try to follow your example. america looks forward to your testimony today. i yield back to you, mr. chairman. john, germany, please. back without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. we will now introduce today's witness. mr. jack smith was appointed as special counsel in november. on november 18, 2022. he served until january seven, 2025. we welcome our witness today. we'll begin by swearing you in. would you please rise and raise

your right hand. do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury that the testimony about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and beliefs? so help you god? i do. that's a record. reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. thank you. you can be seated. please. now that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly, we asked you summarize your testimony, mr. smith. you may begin. chairman jordan, ranking member raskin, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work in special counsel. i love my country and believe deeply in the corporate ripples upon which it was founded. for nearly three decades, i've served as a career prosecutor in both republic and democratic administrations. i've handled cases ranging from domestic assault and gang violence to public corruption, election crimes across the united states and a prosecutor, war crimes overseas.

i am not a politician and i have no partizan loyalties. my career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law. throughout my public service, my approach has always been the same. follow the facts and the law without fear or favor. experienced prosecutors know that specific case outcomes are beyond our control. our responsibility is to do the right thing. the right way for the right reasons. these principles have guided me through my career, including as special counsel. i'm proud of the work my team did, and i appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to correct false and misleading narratives about our work. during my tenure as special counsel, we followed justice department policies. we observed legal requirements and took actions based on the

facts and the law. i made my decisions without regard to president trump's political association activity. these beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election, president trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold grand juries and to separate districts reach this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments, they returned rather accept his defeat in the 2020 election. president trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. after leaving office in january of 21, president trump illegally kept classified documents at his mira lago social and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to

conceal his continued retention of those documents. highly sensitive national security information was held in a ballroom and a bathroom. as i testify before the committee today, i want to be clear. i stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges. president trump. our investigation develops proof beyond a reasonable doubt that president trump engaged in criminal activity if asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, i would do so regardless of whether that president was a democrat or a republican. no one no one should be above the law in this country. and the law required that he be held to account. so that is what i to have done. otherwise, on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as

a public servant, which i had no intention of doing. i remain grateful for the counsel judgment, advice of my team. president trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, fbi agents and support staff simply for having worked on these cases to vilify and seek retribution and against these people is wrong. those dedicated public servants are the best of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them. after nearly 30 years of public service, include in international settings, i have seen how the rule of law can erode my fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long. many us have come to take it for granted. the rule of law is not

self-executing. it depends on our collective commitment to apply it. it requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult. it comes with costs or willingness to pay those costs is what tested and defined our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country. thank you. we will now proceed under the five minute rule. we have votes coming in any minute now, but i think i think we will have time for three or four members to get their five minute question in before the committee. will. we'll take a recess to go vote. they are not going to close the vote until we get there. i know that. i know that much. so we start with the gentleman from california recognized for 5 minutes. good morning, mr. smith. when attorney general garland appointed you, he cited the particular really sensitive matters at issue and extraordinary circumstances is the reason for appointing a special counsel. what did you take that to mean.

what i understood that to mean is i wish to conduct an independent investigation and come to my own conclusions about whether the facts and the law supported a prosecution. but clearly he was alluding to the fact that we had an investigation into a leading candidate for president. that was part of the extraordinary circumstances. would you agree. i rely on his public statements about that. i understood my as special counsel was governed by the regulations which required me to make an independent decision on my own. so certainly you would agree it was important to approach the investigation with humility and restraint. is that fair. yes and that's what i sought to do. i sought to do you thought you possessed of those qualities in fact, you testified in your deposition, quote, i thought i was the right person for the job. of course, some disagreed constitution the law professor

jonathan turley, for example, has said, quote, jack smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. i assume disagree with that statement by professor turley. i do disagree with that statement. i think my career speaks for itself. i have. but that statement was also and i'm sorry to have to interrupt. i just have a short amount of time. that statement was also echoed by the united states supreme court in a unanimous opinion in mcdonald versus the united states, where the court overturned convictions that you had pursued against a former governor, criticized, using your boundless interpretation of the federal criminal statute as issue. that opinion was joined by justices ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor and kagan. so do you also disagree with that statement by those justices. i have conducted my career in a nonpartisan fashion. that particular case, the legal position that the department took, that wasn't my personal position. that was the position of the department. i see. so, mr. smith, i've had the

opportunity during my time on this committee to review the work of two special counsels, john durham, during a point during the trump administration and robert byrd during the biden administration. and in both cases they seemed to exhibit that humility and restraint that we talked about. but in reviewing in detail the you conducted this investigation, i see a very different mode of operation one that sought maximum litigation advantage at every turn, one that repeatedly circumvented constitutional limitations to the point that you had to be reined in. and again, throughout the process, for example, shortly after you became a special counsel, you issued a subpoena for the phone records of the speaker of the house of representatives over a two month period, along with four other senators and representative even though the public integrity section at doj cited a litigation to doing this, what was that litigation risk. with respect to the total record subpoenas that we issued, they were approved by the public integrity section, the public

integrity section, and approving those subpoenas noted the fact that the subpoenas were for records for people who were not targets of our investigation. but they said there was a litigation risk and you moved forward with it anyway and not only that, but you also sought orders from judges making it so those who were being having their records seized would not know about it. and you even didn't tell those judges that it was members of congress whose records you were going after, in apparent contravention of a federal statute, saying that a telephone provider for a senate office shall not be barred from providing notice that the records had been requested. now, if you sought to do that today, would you be able to get away with that with asking the judges for a nondisclosure order without telling them? these are members of congress. when. secured these total record subpoenas, it was done through 220 in the are 207. the bill is seven, the bill is passed

without objection. a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house. yeah. go ahead and bring him up. pursuant to house resolution 1014 and rule 18, the chair declares the house and the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 7148 with a will the gentleman from florida, mr. fine, kindly take the chair. >> no gavel. >> the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, for the further consideration of h.r. 7148, which the clerk will report by title. >> h.r. 7148. a bill making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30th,

2026, and for other purposes. >> when the committee of the whole rose earlier today. amendment number two, printed in part b of house report 119462, offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman had been postponed pursuant to clause six of rule 18. proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 119462, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one, by mr. massie of kentucky. amendment number two by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one, printed in part b of house report 119462, offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the eyes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will read. designate the amendment. >> amendment number one, printed in part b of house report number one, 19, 462,

offered by mr. massie of kentucky. >> a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted, a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two minute vote. without objection to in conducting a criminal

investigation, securing non content toll records, as you described, is a common practice in almost any complex. okay let's go to something else that i've been hearing over the last week by her colleagues is they've eagerly anticipated your arrival here. they've been saying that there's some kind of first amendment defense that donald trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for. is there a valid first amendment defense to defrauding the public? is there a valid first amendment defense to disrupting a federal proceeding? is there a valid first amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election? the amendment is something we took seriously in our investigation, but the first amendment does not protect speech. it facilitates a crime speech

that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular is not protected under the first amendment. the supreme court precedent on that is clear. this is an issue that litigated before the district court and the district court ruled, as i just stated, that it is not in fact protected in the case. law is perfectly clear on this. right. all are perpetrated by speech, right? yes. oh, conspiracy. these are perpetrated by speech. so just because you are a criminal conduct is brocaded with speech doesn't somehow mean you've got a first amendment defense, a defense against trying to overthrow the government. i mean, the people who attacked the police officers on january six were chanting, hang mike pence. i suppose that was political speech. or they were saying, stop the steal. does that mean they've got a first amendment defense to violent assault against the officers? it does not. william barr, by the way, was

somebody who was perfectly clear about that. the attorney, donald trump's own attorney general said there's no freedom of speech that you have to engage in a conspiracy to overthrow an election to commit crime. he was perfectly clear about that back in those days. in fact, lots of people on that side, including my good friend, the chairman, denounced the violence that took place on january 6th. the cats got their tongue. these days, my friend sherman jordan said, what happened week was terrible is tragic. it's is wrong, is wrong, can be, he said. republicans, we know all political violence is wrong. i asked my friend sherman jordan at a rules hearing, are you also not interested in what happened to us on january six? he said. of course, everyone's interested in holding people accountable who did wrong. the fbi is doing that. the justice department is doing that appropriately. so what do you think about the attack on the department of justice and the special counsel

for doing your jobs is not not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number two, printed in part b of house report 119462, offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number two, printed in part b of house report number one, 19, 462, offered by mr. norman of south carolina. >> a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted, a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this will be a two minute vote.

? six committee there, star witness in one of those staged and choreographed. they paid the former president of abc news to put together. she was fact the only witness at this special prime time hearing. tuesday, june 28, 2022. 8:00 in the evening. and she told some stories. i mean, these were these were some stories she talked about. president lunged across the back seat, grabbed the steering, tried to drive the car to the capitol, and i just want to know, you think she was lying? i chairman jordan, my assessment of that particular issue is that

with respect to the testimony about someone lunged at the president, lunging towards the driver. my recollection of her testimony about that is that it was second hand. she said she'd heard that from somebody you're familiar with the name tony renato. i'm sorry. are you familiar with the name tony or not? yes. white house deputy of operations, deputy chief of staff for operation. right. you know, you remember what he said about it. as i sit here right now, i do not. he said it didn't happen. how about bobby ingle? you're familiar with that name? yes, i am. secret service agent who was actually in the car that day. you know what he said? he said it didn't happen. and they both said the first time they ever heard this story was when ms. hutchinson testified in the prime time hearing as their star witness of the january six committee. by the way, did you ever confirm her testimony about this particular incident.

we conducted? as i said, our own independent investigation of all aspects of the case that we thought was relevant. we attorneys from my office, deborah, confirm that simple question. well, we interviewed or i should say, attorneys in my office. but do you ever confirm the president leaping across the sea, grabbing the steering wheel, this whole concoction she brought up in the january six hearing, do you ever confirm that? right. we interviewed another firsthand witness who is in the car, who did not confirm that that can happen, but also your deposition to the committee last month. mr. smith, you said this my recollection with ms. hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay. you remember making that statement to us last month in the deposition? i did. and i was referring particularly to what we're talking about now. yeah. and you also said ms. hutchinson, regarding listeners

or to 91, >> on this vote, the. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. back. >> mr. chair. >> mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house in the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 7148, pursuant to house resolution 1014, i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house. >> the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 7148 and pursuant to house resolution 1014, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house. under the rule, the previous

question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor please say aye. those opposed, please say no. the ayes have it. third reading. >> the bill making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30th, 2026, and for other purposes. >> the question is on passage of the bill under clause ten of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device pursuant to clause nine of rule 20. this five minute vote on passage of h.r. 7148 will be followed by two minute votes on the motion to recommit. h.r. 6003 59. passage of h.r. 6003 59 if ordered, and adoption of house concurrent resolution 68. this is a five minute vote.

amendment is not adopted. committee will come to order. gentlemen, from ranking members recognized programs, consent requests. thank you very kindly, mr. chairman. and this just goes to the the question of the hypothetical witness at the trial. it didn't happen. new york times may one, 2024 trump acknowledges he wanted to

go to the capitol on january 6th. objection. carol leonnig, who you quoted, carol leonnig, outlines. tony, we're not his history of lies. that's june 30, 2022. objection. in july one, 2022, the men disputing testimony are two of trump's biggest acolytes. and finally, june 29, 2022, cnn cassidy, hutchinson's by her testimony amid pushback. thank you very much. the gentleman from new york is recognized. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith. over the past few years, republicans have waged constant on you. donald trump has said you are totally compromised. a political hitman, a left wing radical, a criminal, a fully weaponised monster that you should be considered mentally deranged and thrown out of the country. just this week, he called you a sick --. unfortunately, the rules of decorum prevent me from saying what i think of donald trump. but he is not the only one to launch attacks against you.

chairman jordan has accused you of abusive surveillance and you and your team of partizan and politically motivated prosecutions. despite the mountain of evidence that you laid out in the special counsel's report and in your court filings, president trump's supporters are convinced that the only reason your team tried to hold him accountable is because you have a vendetta against him. i want to address these allegations today. you've had a long and distinguished career with the justice department, including serving as the chief of doj's public integrity section for five years while leading the public integrity section. you led investigations and prosecution of public figures and political leaders from both parties, republicans and democrats. can you give us a couple of examples. sorry about that. during my time as the chief of public integrity, i investigated cases involving both republicans and democrats. the standard in all of those

cases was the same follow the facts and the law didn't matter what party you in, it mattered. the facts of the case. in doing that, there were cases i brought against democrats and cases i brought against republicans. there were also cases that i investigated and did not bring against democrats and republicans. party affiliate played no role in my investigation. i can think of multiple cases of prominent members of congress that we investigated who were republican aides, who, upon reviewing the law and the facts, i not to go forward in those cases. and the same can be said with people on the democratic side. i've always tried to follow the facts and law and my career when it comes to deciding whether to pursue a criminal prosecution of an individual. what factors do you consider. the primary factors are the facts and the law in as a

federal prosecutor, in making a prosecutorial decision, you're guided by the federal principles of the prosecution, which one? not only to look at the facts and the law, but the federal interests. and that is exactly what we did in case as set forth in my final report. does partizan politics play a role in your decision whether or not to prosecute someone? none. to be clear, partizan politics play a role in your decision to charge donald trump. it did not. what does it do to the justice system of political leaders? place pressure on prosecutors to file charges against their political enemies. what are the implications since the prosecution decisions are based politics, not the law? i think it weakens the rule of law in our country because it weakens the mechanism for us to prosecute shoot, among other things, corruption. when there is a political

prosecutions targeting people because they're enemies of the president, the department loses credibility and it can't do its job in all sorts of sorts of cases. according to your deposition before this committee, it sounds like your problem was not determining if you had enough evidence to charge donald trump, rather, that you might have had too much evidence and struggled to determine how to present a clear narrative to a jury. how would you characterize the evidence against mr. trump about inciting an insurrection and against the laws of this country? did you have too much? well, 341 and the nays are 88. the bill is passed. without objection,bill is passet objection. a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> all. >> what are we doing?

>> to clause eight of rule 20? the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to recommend on h.r. 6359, offered by the gentlewoman from oregon, miss. michie, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will be will redesignate the motion. >> motion to recommit h.r. 6359, offered by miss bonamici of oregon. >> the question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two minute vote.

or reconsider is laid on the table. aren't stupid. they just know things that don't happen to be true. if the president believed that he was cheated in that there was fraud or in some other way, a number of items led to his defeat when in fact he should have won, according the constitution. does that make him a criminal. sir? no, no. that's a yes or no. please, mr. smith. if these people here are continuing to grab grapple constantly with things that are true, like socialism works, or that somehow everything the republicans do is evil and everything they do is right. they've never reached a conclusion in a typical partizan case in which we're not evil

because we think something different and we're not wrong. you understand the constitute tution. do you understand, in the bill of rights that someone has the absolute right to believe something, whether it's true or not, and to advocate for something, whether it's true or not? do you understand that in addition to your oath to the constitution, that that's one of the things the first amendment allows for, isn't it. yes, sir. okay. so if you know that people have a right to opine, lobby for a cert, do everything they can legally to to ask for people to to make different decisions, then why is it you saw criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win? chairman jordan and myself have something in common along with a number of others here. we saw wrongdoing. and on january sixth, we voted not to confirm two states

because they had violated the u.s. constitution in how they selected who got ballots. and yet you're going to come here and say, well, i just followed the law. when you went after these people and you said, well, technically, i can do that. you didn't see any selective nature or any separation of powers under the constitution to spying on the activities and the conversations of the speaker of the house. to what end would congress ations between the speaker of the u.s. house? third or second in line to be the president and the president in what basis would there be any of your business other than you believe that there was a conspiracy without conspiracy as a basic premise? you like the president men for richard nixon went after your political enemies. maybe they're not your political enemies, but they sure as hell

were joe biden's political, weren't they? they were harris's political enemies. they were the enemies of the president. and you were there arm, weren't you? no, no. oh, great. so you spied on the speaker of the house and these other senators. and so and informed no one. and in fact put in a gag order so they couldn't discover it if they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation. why did congress a separate branch that you under the constitution, have to respect? why is it that? no one should be informed. include the judges, as you went in to spy. on these people, did you mention that you were spying on seeking record so you could find out about when conversations occurred between the u.s. speaker of the house and the president? did you inform the judge or did you hold that back?

13. the nays are two. six. the motion is 216. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed? no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman pasteurized? >> nays. >> the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of the vote by the ayes and nays will rise. a sufficient number of having risen. the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a two minute vote.

the witness can respond. we did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a nondisclosure order consistent with the law and consistent with the. mr. chairman, the amazing thing here today is that we have an admission that an hour determined that the gentleman time has expired by now, 34 seconds gets more than 5 minutes. many times. you want me the time. the time belongs to the gentleman from california. it will be has expired. i'll be brief in my address to the chairman. we have the evidence that an article one representative on behalf of the president withheld. chairman. mr. chairman, i really leading with that. i yield back in disgust of this witness sticking with california, the gentle lady from california is now recognized him. mr. smith, thank you for being here today. you know, earlier the chairman

spent a lot of time talking about kassidy hutchinson, who we know is just one of many witnesses. it's important to note that there was testimony that she was told something by mr. or not or not that she had personal knowledge and of course, mr. not was a very questionable of veracity. we had a test amany from a metropolitan police department official about an argument. a big argument that the president was having about going to the capital, and in fact that the vehicle was delayed going back to the capital while that argument occurred. but having said that, i want to focus on something my colleagues across the aisle seem to want to ignore. the fact that you're investing into president trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election was built on testimony from members of the republican party. in fact, last week, the new york times published grand jury transcripts from georgia that

show the same pattern in trump's georgia criminal case. georgia's republican attorney general, chris carr, testified that he told, quote in this a quote, we're just not seeing the things that you are seeing. and the late georgia house speaker david ralston, also a republican, testified that trump's fake electorate scheme was, quote, the craziest thing i've heard. and then there's 17, the nays are 211. the bill is passed. and but 211. the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause eight of rule 20. the unfinished business is to vote on the adoption of a house current concurrent resolution 68, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. >> house concurrent resolution 68 concurrent resolution to direct the removal of united states armed forces from venezuela that have not been authorized by congress.

>> the question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two minute vote. objection, the motion to and i believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it's going to impose a cost on them in their lives. my experi ence as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses

like that are very credible and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that because they pay a cost for telling the truth. in terms of the grand jury testimony that's now been released, the fact that a donald trump, according to senator graham, would believe that martin stole the election, what does that tell you about trump's state of mind. that that statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation and in that our investigation revealed that donald trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. he was looking for ways to stay in power. and when people told him things that conflict it with him staying in power, he rejected them, or he chose not even to contact people like that who would know if the election was done properly in his state.

on the other hand, when individuals would say things that would allow him to stay in power no matter how fantastical, he would latch on to those that pattern over time, we felt, was powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew that the fraud claims he was making were false. you know, who were some of the republican witnesses who told you that president, who told president trump that his claims of election fraud were false? can you can you share that with us. there were a range of witnesses. they ranged from people on his campaign team who had wanted him to win, were employed to help him win the election. they included state officials, state republican officials who wanted him to win, voted for him, campaigned for him, asked him to provide, asked him and

his coconspirators to provide evidence to support their claims and invariably they never did. it included officials, advisers, people he worked with in the white house who he relied upon for important decisions and who he trusted in other contexts. we felt we had strong evidence from a variety of sources. i'm at the gerald ladee has expired. mr. herman with my fellow california you were allowing the way. it's a good question. isn't that grounds to let him answer? i've given him 30 seconds extra. the gentlelady 30 seconds extra. if the gentleman can be concise and finish up here quickly, we will allow him to finish. yes, sir. and just conclude saying we felt that that a constituted powerful evidence of the knowing falsity of his statements in furtherance of the fraud. mr. chairman, i would like to yield back. noting the presence of officer those who were severely. it got nothing to yield back over to the gentleman from texas. our lives on january 6th.

the gentleman from texas, mr. gill, was recognized for 5 minutes. mr. smith. in january 20, 23, did you subpoena then? speaker of the house kevin mccarthy's total records. yes, sir, we did. yes, you did. and the subpoena covered the time period between november 2020 and january 2021. is that right? i'm sorry, sir. could you say that again? we're not we're not going to delay like this. the subpoena covered the time period between november of 2020 and january 20, 21. how many days after kevin mccarthy was sworn in as speaker, did you subpoena his records? i don't recall. but those two things had nothing. it was six days after becoming the highest ranking republican in the house of representatives. you subpoenaed his toll records. do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate clause. i do not. and i want to be clear that the time you were collecting months worth of phone data on the republican speaker of the house,

the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker are all around the time of a major vote. that sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and i think most people agree with me and speaker mccarthy had no recourse did because you issued a nondisclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the american people knew about these subpoenas. is that right. the total record, the non-contact, all records, subpoenas, we did secure nondisclosure orders for those subpoenas. you did. and let me ask you, mr. smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders was speaker mccarthy a flight risk? the nondisclosure order was based on concerns with speaker mccarthy. a flight risk was not he was not. then why did your nondisclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? it says right here the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from

prosecution. sir, when securing a nondisclosure of your order, the risks don't have to be associated that the speaker of the house is finishing his question now, this is not your time. this is my time. you think? you think the speaker of the house is a flight risk? do you think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? no, no. what i was trying to explain is with respect to a nondisclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with this. subscriber to the phone. there's the risks. okay. i think that you were using this was clearly in reference to to speaker mccarthy and you were using clearly false information to secure a nondisclosure order to hide from speaker mccarthy and from the american people. the fact that you were spying on his total records. but i've got more. more. so let's move on. in may of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for total records of nine u.s. senators and an

additional representative. is that right? in may of 23, we did issue. you did. and there were nondisclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well. right. that's correct. consistent with department policy. right. so, again, nobody would know what you were doing. the senators would and the representatives within the american people wouldn't know what you were doing. is that right? the total records that we secured and the nondisclosure orders were consistent with policy and and you knew whenever you were doing that that there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. is that right? the total record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the public. in your own analysis, this says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. i have it right here. this is an email from john keller at public integrity section to your team is you are aware, quote, as you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of total records of a member's legislative calls violates the speech or debate

clause in the d.c. circuit. that's from your own analysis right there. so you did know, didn't you, sir? with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states we're going to get to the last minute. okay. we're going to get to the last sentence. and you cite case law and here quote the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute is right. is that right? or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent? to be clear, this is not this statement is not from my office. this is the statement. this is this is your justification for those subpoenas and indios that you ordered. this was part of your analysis. it's a cursory analysis. i think it's worth noting. let's get to that last sentence then. well, given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal. here. in other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. you're not charging any of these members. nobody is going to know about it because you issued indios.

nobody is going to sue about it. so sue this. so who cares? we're going to do it anyways. i mean, you walked all over the constitution throughout this entire process in the gentleman's time, spying on members of congress. and you know, it it's absolutely disgraceful. i yield back. gentleman yields back now going to be charged. they're not going to see it. they're not going to know because we're not going to tell them. so let's go ahead and do it is exactly what happened. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes. thank you, mr. chair. mr. smith, it's me. great that you've been allowed to come here and testify to the american public. is there anything you'd like briefly to discuss that mr. gill brought up on the reasons why you needed those phone records and the limitation is that you thought that might have been on you in the prosecution or because of the risk, the investigation. sure. and i would begin by pointing out that the email that was referenced wasn't a justification from my office. it was an email from the public integrity section to my office

approving the subpoenas. the subpoenas that we secured, the we secured with non-disclosure orders from a judge, because i had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation, specifically with regards to donald trump, not only did we have the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case, but i was aware during the course of our investigation of targeting of witnesses in during the course of the conspiracy itself, there were election workers who had their lives turned upside down and received vile death threats because they were targeted by donald trump and his coconspirators. i had a duty to protect witnesses in this investigation that risk, that threat to witnesses was only confirmed when we went forward in this case. and donald trump suggested that

one witness should be put to death and then also issued a statement to the effect of if you come after me, i'm coming after you. in my mind, i can't think of a more direct threat to witnesses and individuals involved in that proceeding, given that sort of threats. it was in my view, completely appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation, to protect against destruction of evidence, and to protect the witnesses in our case. and just make clear, you did not see any of the discussion. there was not any it was just the content that they made a call to the president, vice versa. but nothing about any content whatsoever. that's correct. a total record subpoena gives you who calls from who it is to and the length of that call. it does not tell you the content of what people are speaking about. you felt that you had a case that was one that you would win the honor, reasonable doubt, no moral certainty.

is there anything in your facts that you had that you would have used at trial that you believe has not been presented to the public in the past or have been misrepresented to the public. is there anything essential facts that you had that you felt would have resulted in a conviction of the president on the charges that he was indicted upon. i think my report, the report of our case, the final report summarizes the evidence. i think, in a way that is gives a fair reading of the strength of the case. and you have no no question, but have been successful for jury. uh, my my review of the case, i came to the conclusion we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. we were ready, willing and able to go to trial in the case. of course, as i said in my opening statement, prosecutors can't control outcomes, but i felt confident in pursuing the case. the trial did.

merrick garland ever pressure you to bring it, to bring an indictment or to do anything in your investigation? no. did anybody else, the administrator should president biden, vice president harris, etc. i was given the independence to conduct my investigation and i came to the decision to bring charges in this case without undue influence from anybody in the department. and you dropped the case. why did you drop the case. the case is against donald trump or dismissed pursuant to department policy, department policy office of legal counsel said if somebody is president, you can't bring a charge against them or they can't be held liable to correct. that's correct. there had not been a case of this nature ever or where someone was elected president with charges pending. and so that was slightly different. so we consulted with public outcry, with the office of legal counsel, and they determined, pursuant to policy that the

cases needed to be dismissed. and you weren't pleased with that, but you had to follow the law and it's what you did. we followed policy throughout my investigation. my job was not to set policy. my job was to follow it. and that's what we did. i want to thank you for your service. i think you're a great american and you came out of this as being somebody who people can respect and look up to in a fashion that we should be stealing people's desire to go into justice, to go into law, and to go into government. you're an example of the type of person they should follow. you're back to balance is back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized, mr. smith. there's something that's really bothering me since your deposition. it's how and why you got the position of special counsel and your personal relationship with marshall miller. let's go back to 1999, when you were working for the united states attorney's office for the eastern district of new york. is that when you first met marshall miller.

yes. so after eddie, new york, did the two of you ever work together again prior to becoming special counsel? according to the public bios for you and mr. miller, you overlapped at doj from 20 1415 when you were chief doj's public integrity section and mr. miller was chief of staff for doj criminal division. is that accurate. i believe that is accurate, yes. okay. so we're the two of you social outside of work. i would say intermittently, yes. okay. but after 20 years of knowing each other, it's safe to say you were friends, correct? yes. okay. so let's fast forward to 2022. mr. miller is appointed principal, associate deputy attorney general at doj. the number three at doj. you call your friend and congratulate him. and according to the deposition transcript, you say you'd be interested in a position at doj.

is that correct? yes. what i recall is that i expressed an interest. if the right position came up, i would be interested in it. but at that point, there's no discussion about special counsel. is that correct? this is sometime ago. and so i don't have a specific recollection of all of these conversations. so you were first approached about special counsel and that role before the 22 midterm elections. and according to the deposition transcript in october of 2022, you fly to dc, meet with the ag and the deputy attorney general. is that correct? yes, i flew to dc, i believe it was in october, and i met the deputy attorney general and also i met the attorney general. so in multiple conversations with your friend marshall miller, he never once tipped you off that the attorney general or deputy attorney general have you on the short list for special counsel. they never came up. again. this was some time ago, but my

recollection is i came to washington and i met with those individuals as well as the human rights section. marshall miller is the person who's who set that up. so he was at the meetings was he had two meetings just just to tie all this together. you've known mr. miller since you were both ausa in new york. you stayed in touch over a 20 year career in federal government. he gets a job with the biden administration in just a few short months later, you're offered the role of special counsel. i'm having a hard time believing that this is some big coincidence and that there wasn't a back and forth on the special counsel. so maybe you never received direct ims explicitly from the ag or the deputy attorney general, but was marshall miller did he become a two way conduit throughout the investigation with doj. no, and i would not take direction from a political

person, a political figure about how i should conduct an investigation. but you never spoke to him throughout the entire time you were conducting investigation. no, i didn't say that. what i said was, okay, that he was i think you asked if he was a conduit of information. he was present, to my recollection, at meetings, briefings that i had with the attorney general and deputy attorney general during my time as special counsel. i mean, i don't want to assume anything, but mr. miller wanted you in that position, not because you're necessarily the best lawyer he ever met, but because of the long term friendship that you have with them. what i can tell you is i have been a prosecutor for 30 years. i have been in apolitical public servant for 30 years. i prosecuted cases against democrats and republicans are all the same. i've had, in my view, the experience necessary for this position, and that's why i accepted it. so he knew that you would pursue

i mean, he had to have an idea that you would pursue exactly what the biden administration wanted, which was criminal charges against president trump. i think that anybody who knows me well knows the the idea that i would take direction from a political figure about how an investigation should come out, i don't think anybody who knows me thinks that's true. well, chairman jordan, i think the next deposition should be with marshal miller at this point. i yield back, gentlemen. yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. and while we are deposing marshal miller, maybe we can depose donald trump about why he chose his personal lawyer to be the head of the doj. on january six, 2026, the fifth anniversary of the insurrection

the white house launched a taxpayer funded website that attempts to rewrite history about what happened on that day of infamy. on january six, 2021, there was an insurrection at the united states capitol that resulted in a police officer dying. the next day, another four officers dying by suicide. in the months thereafter, with at least 140 police officers being injured by the insurrectionists, with 15 of them requiring hospital desertion. and i'm proud that we have four former officers as well as on duty. capitol hill police officers here today. mr. smith, i want to ask you about this website, because the trump administration is using taxpayer dollars to lied to the american people about the events leading up to and the events taking place on january six, 2021, for example, this trump

propaganda site claims that the 2020 election was, quote, stolen. mr. smith, did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that his claim that the election was stolen was false? yes, it did. and did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump publicly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him while he privately acknowledged that he had lost the election? yes, we cited instances of that during our in our case, but yet here we see that on the fifth anniversary of the insurrection, the trump white house propaganda machine is still promoting the stolen election theory on this government web page with a text

box titled, quote, fraudulent election stolen election certified, and quote, the site also has a subset reading in part, quote, fbi entrapment operation exposed. mr. smith, did your investigation develop any evidence to support the allegation that the fbi entrapped inside earnest into committing crimes on january six? our investigation revealed that donald trump is the person who caused january sixth, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence. this website also accuses you of being a quote. biden prosequi, who brought, quote, weaponized charges against mr. trump. mr. smith, were you a biden prosecutor who report weaponized the department of justice against donald trump?

absolutely not. did attorney general merrick garland direct you to press acute trump because donald trump was running against joe biden in the presidential election? no. there are also allegations that president trump was the victim of, quote, lawfare and accusations that the department of justice lawyers who prosecuted donald trump used, quote, fabricated indictments and rigged show trials. did you, mr. smith, or the men and women working on your team work to fabricate indictments or put on rigged show trials? no, we secured indictments from grand juries, and we were prepared to prove our case in court beyond a reasonable doubt. did you use your appointment as special counsel to conduct a politically motivated witch hunt scam, investigate option and prosecution of donald trump? i did not.

we followed the facts and we followed the law where that led us to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power and those in indictments have been dismissed. missed. can they be brought or resurrected after this? after trump leaves office, they were dismissed without prejudice so they can be refiled and he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. is that correct? i'm not going to speak to that. i can only speak to what we did, which was dismiss the case without prejudice or right. the website put out by the trump white house on the anniversary of january, january six is nothing more than a pack of lies. its current resolution is not adopted not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

>> you did a really great job up there. thank you. we gotta move this up a little bit. how are you? nice to see you. >> president bush. how?

>> or anything. okay. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i sent to the desk a resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. >> the clerk will report the title. >> house resolution 1016,

resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of h.r. 7147. >> is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. okay. the chair lays before the house a communication. >> the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 22nd, 2026 i hereby designate the period from thursday, january 22nd, 2026 through sunday, february 1st, 2026, as a district work period under clause 13 of rule one. signed. sincerely, mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives. >> okay. >> the chair will now entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania

seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate two families that were awarded century farm status at the pennsylvania farm show last week. agriculture has a long history in the commonwealth. it has been one of the state's first industries for the prosperity of the state. it's important to preserve these farms and pass them to the next generation. pennsylvania leads the nation in a number of preserved farms and and the century and bicentennial farm programs recognize the commitment and hard work that these families have endured to keep their farms in production. this year, two families from pennsylvania's 15th congressional district were presented with century farm status. jeremiah keck, a resident of dubois family farm, dates back to 1860. their farm and barn were were built in

1931 is still used, and some historical photos of their farm are preserved in the library of congress. their farm is one of 40 century farms in clearfield county. scott and cheryl canter from smicksburg have farmed almost 100 acres of land since 1867. indiana county has 56 century farms. mr. speaker, i thank these families for their hard work and their dedication to the agriculture industry. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> for one minute? without objection. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate my neighbor helen moraga's hundredth birthday. helen graduated in 1945 from santa ana high school. after graduating, she played shortstop in an all female

professional baseball team in orange county. later, helen married frank lucas moraga, a fellow orange county resident, and they raised their three sons in the same neighborhood they grew up. helen and frank were married for 60 years and shared 12 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren. at 100 years young, helen loves reading, gardening, and spending time with her friends and family. helen. happy birthday go saints. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> extend my remarks? >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on the 43rd anniversary of the devastating roe versus wade supreme court decision. for nearly 50 years, roe distorted our constitution and did great harm to our nation. the decision was not rooted in the text of the constitution. instead, the

court invented a constitutional right grounded in a vague, undefined concept of privacy that the court itself struggled to explain. rose silenced voters, sidelined legislatures, and eroded respect for the judiciary by turning judges into policymakers. worst of all, it cost millions of innocent lives. in overturning roe, the supreme court rightly corrected a grave legal error and returned authority to the states where it belongs. that restoration of constitutional order was long overdue. and i also bid. hello and welcome to my friends from the center for arizona policy who are in the gallery today. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. >> mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize miss terry dennison as she retires from an outstanding career as a georgia district director of the small

business administration. since 2002, terry has been a steadfast advocate for small businesses and entrepreneurs, ensuring that they have the resources and guidance needed to grow and succeed. terry's leadership was especially vital during times of economic uncertainty throughout the covid 19 pandemic. she was instrumental in helping georgia's small business navigate unprecedented challenges. terry worked tirelessly to connect business owners with relief with relief programs, which provided stability and hope in the midst of crisis. i offer my deepest gratitude to terry for her devotion to georgia's entrepreneurial community and celebrate her extraordinary accomplishments in service to this country. through the years, she has always been willing to serve the people of georgia, and i have enjoyed working with her through many events for small business stakeholders in my district. on behalf of my office, georgia sixth congressional district and the united states house of representatives. congratulations and best wishes on your retirement. terry.

>> for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of oliver ollie jenkins, a proud bronx native whose presence left a lasting mark on his family and community. born and raised in the bronx, ollie came from a close knit, hardworking family whose small businesses were fixtures in their neighborhood. those values stayed with him throughout his life. in 1971. ollie answered the call to serve our country, enlisting in the united states army and serving honorably, including time stationed in germany. like many veterans, he later carried the invisible wounds of service, facing ptsd with courage and the steadfast support of those who loved him, ollie was gentle, kind and unforgettable. known for his laugh, his jokes, his love of karate and bruce lee, and for proudly representing the bronx everywhere he went.

he was a devoted father and grandfather, a loyal brother, uncle and neighbor, and a familiar beloved presence in our community. he leaves behind a family who cherished him deeply, especially his daughter colby, and a legacy built in love, perseverance and deep faith. may his memory be a blessing to all who knew him, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house and to extend and revise my remarks? >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to recognize the remedy church and its congregation as ohio's 13th congressional districts champion of the week. this past weekend marked a significant milestone as the remedy church celebrated five years of faithful service to god and community under the leadership of pastor deonte lavender and pastor are ana lisa lavender, affectionately known as pastor lav and pastor lisa. the remedy church is dedicated to welcoming everyone from our community with open arms,

guided by the motto love christ, love people, build community and the mission to teach christ boldly, love our city deeply, and build lasting and strategic partnerships that transforms lives earlier. the reach goes beyond. earlier this year, excuse me, the remedy church moved to downtown akron, further establishing themselves into the greater akron faith community. their reach goes beyond the church doors as they have fed thousands, housed hundreds, and ministered in prisons and throughout the community. my husband, kevin, and i recently had the pleasure of attending a service at the remedy church, which was also their fifth anniversary, and we were moved by the enthusiastic spirit of fellowship, joy, and genuine camaraderie that filled the sanctuary. i sincerely want to thank pastor laugh and pastor lisa and the entire remedy church congregation on their fifth anniversary. may you continue to grow, to serve, and to a blessing to both our community and service of our lord and savior for many years to come. thank you. mr. speaker.

i yield back. >> georgia seek recognition. >> yes. unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and the legacy of deputy insurance commissioner steve manders, a dedicated public servant who passed away on january 17th at the age of 64. this recognition celebrates a man who gave 38 years of faithful service to the state of georgia, rising to the role of deputy insurance commissioner, where he exemplified steady leadership, expertise and integrity in protecting consumers and overseeing our insurance marketplace. steve was a devoted family man, survived by his wife of 39 years, mindy. daughters merritt and morgan, and three cherished grandchildren. he found great joy in golfing, fishing and creating lasting memories with his family. steve was also a

respected baseball umpire who proudly officiated college world series three times, reflecting his passion to the game. he loved his life of service, a family devotion and strength is truly inspirational and leaves an enduring impact on our state. the state of georgia is stronger because of mr. manders and he will be missed dearly. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address and revise my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of abolishing ice. ice is out of control. just in the past month against american citizens, ice has shot and killed a 37 year old mother of three, tear gassed a six month

old baby in his parents car and hauled out a grandfather in 14 degree weather in nothing but his underwear. thanks to donald trump and kristi noem, our communities constantly live in fear of those who are supposed to protect them. when an agency structure consistently produce harm instead of justice, there is no way to reform it. we must abolish ice. mr. speaker, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from wyoming seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to the. >> floor for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize and congratulate laramie, wyoming's very own frank krumm, for his performance and touchdown in the denver broncos playoff win versus the buffalo bills this past weekend. as an offensive lineman, it is not

often that frank finds himself open downfield. in fact, this was frank's first reception and first touchdown of his nfl career. frank's touchdown is the result of an unwavering work ethic and a commitment to excellence. following a commendable collegiate career at the university of wyoming, frank went undrafted in the 2024 nfl draft, but he did not let that deter him, and he signed with the denver broncos as an undrafted free agent. frank showed grit and determination, working his way up the roster to become a key piece of the denver broncos offensive line. frank's dedication and commitment paid off this weekend, as he scored an iconic touchdown that was key in the broncos 3330 victory. please join me in recognizing and celebrating the hard work and successes of wyoming's frank krumm. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

celebrate one of my staff members, anthony uribe, who's being recognized by the sacramento metro chamber of commerce as a young professional of the year. anthony joined my staff in 2018, when he was a senior at sacramento state university as an intern, came on as a staff assistant and has been working his way up. anthony has shown grit, perseverance, representing the sacramento communities of north sacramento, del paso heights, natomas. he's a great extension of what we do. anthony is innovative and one of the best anthony stories is as a staff assistant. you got to pick the member of congress up early in the morning. sometimes because i'm on the west coast, that's a 4 a.m. pickup call. well, one morning he may have overslept his alarm clock there, so he got got there and he said, i'll get you to the airport. mr. congressman, for those in sacramento county, he got me from elk grove to the airport in ten minutes flat. so maybe there was a little bit of speeding there. anyway, it's.

congratulations, anthony. congratulations. i wish i was there with you for the award ceremony, but well deserved. mr. speaker, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, a year ago, i introduced legislation to cut off all funding for california's high speed rail project. and today, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, the house passed this measure as part of an appropriations bill that will soon be signed into law. this is fantastic news for american taxpayers and for california taxpayers, as the high speed rail project is the biggest public infrastructure failure in united states history. it was supposed to be done in 2020, and yet now, in 2026, no track has been laid despite spending $18 billion. the estimated total cost has ballooned from

$33 billion to $128 billion. and even the new york times found that it's not on pace to be finished this century. with the success of this legislation, our federal tax dollars in california can go where they're needed when it comes to transportation, and that is to improve our failing roads, to alleviate traffic, and to actually improve the quality of life for californians. i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a friend and a pillar of riverside. roger ransom, who died on december 28th, 2025, at the age of 87. i knew roger for many decades. he was smart, funny and unfailingly insightful. he was deeply it was deeply fortunate for all of us that he should have spent so many, spent so long at university of california, riverside, as a

distinguished professor of history and economics. his brilliance shone through in the wide range of books, articles and papers he published across his storied academic career and beyond, his ability to write and to do research, he also showed a special ability to teach and mentor students. it is a testament to roger that he never let his curiosity abate. writing his final book, even in his final months of his life. my heart goes out to his extraordinary wife, connie, and entire family and all the innumerable lives he touched along the way. rest easy roger. you've you've earned it. i thank you, and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize my bill. the care for military kids act that was included in the appropriations package for 2026 that just passed the house. as a proud representative of virginia's second congressional district,

home to one of the largest active duty military populations in the united states, advocating for those who serve our country and their families is one of my top priorities. unlike civilian families, military families often need to move every 2 to 3 years not by choice, but by obligation. when relocated to another state, service members uproot their whole lives to answer the call to serve, and their families often sacrifice a great deal for service members who have dependents with disabilities. the sacrifice can greatly impact their livelihood. unfortunately, with every move, dependent children must reenter entirely new state health systems with new medicaid rules, new waiver programs, new provider networks, and long wait lists. the care for military kids act would ensure that any dependent of an active duty service member currently receiving long term care services through a state administered medicaid plan will remain eligible should their family be stationed outside the state. ensuring our service members do not have to choose between serving their country and getting their children the critical care they need. i was

grateful that this important piece of legislation was included in the appropriations package for 2026. thank you. and i yield back. >> what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to express my horror at what we are witnessing in minnesota. christie domes dhs has been working with no oversight and no accountability. the irresponsibility and recklessness is costing human lives. ice is terrorizing our communities indiscriminately, racially profiling, using force against peaceful protesters, barging into people's homes without warrants, preventing doctors from treating their patients, blocking students from their classrooms, snatching children, elderly people, pregnant women, veterans and active military and american citizens from our streets. republicans have been silent while this administration terrorizes people and communities, and violates the rights and freedoms enshrined in our

constitution. what will it take for the majority in this congress to speak up? where is your line? our communities deserve the dignity of safety and justice, not the cruelty of silence and complicity. you can stop this. please stand up. stand up for the constitution. stand up for freedom. stand up for liberty. stand up for justice and stand up for humanity. mr. speaker, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, in rather sad news, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of doctor eddie floyd of florence, south carolina. doctor floyd was a lifelong gamecock, a respected physician, a pillar in his community. but more than his titles, he really embodied a life of service to others. for

from his decades caring for patients to his more than 40 years of leadership at the university of south carolina, including serving as chairman of the board of trustees, doctor floyd believed in investing in people and in the future of our state. he loved his community. he loved his family. he loved his alma mater, certainly, and he worked every day to make all of them stronger. he leaves behind a legacy of service, leadership and kindness. my prayers are with the floyd family and with everyone who had the privilege of knowing him. south carolina is a better place because of his service. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in just one short year, our constituents have already begun

to suffer the consequences of the trump administration's agenda to undo life saving environmental protections. the latest rollback is expected to target key parts of epa's 2015 and 2024 coal ash rules. coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion by power plants, contains hazardous heavy metals that, if left unregulated, can pollute our land and our water. the effects of these toxins on the human body include increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. certainly, the protections like monitoring groundwater and lining legacy coal ash ponds to prevent contamination are common sense, but these requirements are at risk of being weakened. delaying coal ash cleanup puts public health in danger. and make no mistake, who those rollbacks are for polluters who would rather poison groundwater than pay a little bit more to protect the public. we should be accelerating cleanup, not creating loopholes that allow toxic waste to sit leaking and

unregulated for years to come. mr. speaker, i urge members to join me in speaking out against this attack on the rules protecting us from coal ash. and with that, i thank you and yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise. >> today to honor the legacy and life of tennessee c hess, a loving husband, father and grandfather who passed away peacefully on november 26th, 2025. tim hess was born in cincinnati, ohio, on october 11th, 1949, and raised in saint petersburg, florida by kurt and joan hess. after graduating from milligan college, tim began his professional journey at sea pines resort in south carolina in 1975. he moved to nelson county, where he played

a pivotal role in opening a staple of virginia's fifth congressional district, wintergreen resort and wintergreen resort, a location known by many virginians. he met the love of his life and wife of 48 years, lynn, and raised their three children, greg, lauren, and paul. over the next five decades, tim became a respected agent, broker, development and managing partner of the wintergreen real estate company. tim hess will be deeply missed, but he will be remembered for his legacy in nelson county and the many lives he touched. please join me in honoring his life of service, conservation, and kindness. and with that, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> requested permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> instead of holding ice accountable for their horrific behavior, including their violent occupation of american

cities like minneapolis, republicans voted on giving ice billions of dollars to terrorize our communities. it is beyond shameful. ice operates with no meaningful oversight and continues to act with impunity, even as it carries out violent operations that have cost lives. i am sick and tired of seeing republicans reward a rogue agency that inflicts harm on our communities. congressional republicans greenlit sending $4,400 million more to ice detention and $370 million more to ice enforcement. this is on top of the unprecedented $170 billion the agency received in trump's big, ugly bill. ice has tormented our communities. let's be clear we are witnessing what we are witnessing from ice is not law enforcement. it is state

sanctioned violence. a woman was killed. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> by ice. our communities deserve. >> gentlewoman is no longer recognized. >> not militarized. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to celebrate 75 years of leadership and public service by the municipal water district of orange county. this milestone isn't just about longevity. it is about leading through change and planning for the future. municipal water district of orange county was founded on a simple yet powerful idea. regional collaboration is stronger than working alone by uniting local agencies and securing access to imported water supplies, the

district has helped lay the foundation for orange county's economic growth, public health and quality of life. 75 years later, municipal water district of orange county remains a model of responsible governance and regional regional cooperation, and it is well prepared to meet the next 75 years with the same leadership and integrity that has built orange county into what it is today. congratulations on 75 years and thank you for serving our community. thank you. and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> to address the. >> house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week, a mother of three, a us citizen, was killed in broad daylight. and you would think in that moment, republicans would find their voice to speak out against the cruelty of this

administration. her children were robbed of memories that make a life, and they won't have their mother there for them. and this week, ice, dhs took this five year old boy, liam ramos, from his family. from his community. this is what liam's teacher says about him. he's very friendly. he comes into class every day and he just brightens the room. his friends haven't asked about him yet, but i know that they'll catch on and what they're going to catch on to those five year olds. the age of my daughter is that this government, this administration, house republicans have failed the american people. they failed our communities. they failed to keep us safe in the name of something that the trump administration has lied to the american people about. this is the face of the people that you are taking from our communities, from their families is unacceptable. and it's unacceptable that you have not found your voice to speak out against it. >> the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. for what purpose does

the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today with gratitude, with pride, and with purpose to honor a son of chicago, mr. derek martel rose from the hard concrete of inglewood to the shining floor of the united center. his journey has been a testimony to greatness. can rise from any zip code. when faith meets discipline and talent meets sacrifice. when mr. derek rose became the youngest most valuable player in nba history, he did not just break a record, he broke a ceiling. he showed our children that brilliance can can be humble, that power can be quiet, and that excellence does not require abandonment of one's roots. when injury knocked him down, derrick rose got back up. not bitter, not broken, but better. still believing, still becoming.

today. as his jersey is lifted to the rafters, we lift a lesson. you can stumble and still stand. you can fall and still fly. derrick rose is not just an mvp of basketball. mr. rose is an mvp of resilience, of hope, of our sweet home chicago. mr. speaker, i yield back. >> under the speaker's announced policy of january 3rd, 2025, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i really do appreciate it. i would like to just begin this. you know, roe versus wade was overturned by the dobbs decision. and but it was january 22nd, 1973, when the us supreme court infamously said that the unborn child has no worth, no standing in law whatsoever and legalized abortion right up until the moment of birth. we have tried for years. i actually met my

wife, marie, in the pro-life movement 50 years ago at college more than 50 years ago. and we do believe, like so many of my colleagues, that life is a gift to be protected and preserved, and birth is an event that happens to every one of us. it's not the beginning of life. to think that somehow the unborn child is throwaway and nothing but but, but an entity that could be destroyed at will is very, very inhumane and we need to speak out as we are doing. i would point out to my colleagues, and i'll be very brief, that my colleagues who are here, there are more than 2700 pregnancy care centers throughout the united states working to help women choose life, each and every one of them an oasis of love, compassion, empathy, respect and care for mothers and their precious children. yet some states and lawmakers, including my own state of new jersey, seek to discriminate against

pregnancy care centers by violating fundamental conscience rights, including trying to compel them to participate or be complicit in abortions. we saw that especially in california, the knights of columbus has released a poll that found that 83% of americans, including 79% of democrats, support pregnancy resource centers. you know, you wouldn't have known that. watching the debate just a couple days ago on michelle fischbach very, very important piece of legislation protecting supporting pregnant and parenting women and families act, it did pass, and i want to thank her for her extraordinary leadership and courage. and, you know, we found during the biden administration, he was actually working towards a rule that would have precluded any kind of tanf funding food stamps and the like to pregnancy care centers to administer and to provide that to their clients. that would

have been so cruel to say that now you're dealing with this woman who is poor. they're not all poor. they go there, but some are, some are indigent and they need help. and all of a sudden we find out that biden wanted to say, you can't participate in this program. six states do. i'm happy to say, and they do provide tanf funding. and again, michelle fischbach bill and i have more to say during this, but i'd like to yield to her. she's in the ways and means committee meeting now that's underway. but i want to thank her for that leadership. you know, i can't tell you how important these pregnancy care centers are. i've been working with them for over 50 years. louise summerhill from canada started the first group of them called birthright, and they were there to say, look, we love you. we will help you. and they do an amazing job. they and all the others now that are in existence and they're global. and again, 2700 of these

tremendous centers in our country, we've got about 55 of them in my state alone. so i'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague michelle fischbach and again, thank her for her legislation this week. thank you. >> i need to be recognized. no, no. oh, well. >> thank you very much. and i will tell you, i have known representative smith for many years through the pro-life movement, and he and his wife, marie, have dedicated so much time, energy and effort to to promote the culture of life and making sure that women are cared for and supported and their families and their babies. and so i think representative smith and his lovely wife, marie, for all that you have done and your inspiration in this, in this movement and this fight to make sure that babies are protected. >> and i would add your husband, scott, who is a tremendous leader and head of national right to. >> life, well, thank you very much, but you have done so much leading us through this. but today i rise with a heart full

of gratitude, not only for the privilege of serving the people of western minnesota, but for the significant step the house took yesterday passing the supporting pregnant and parenting women families act. this is more than just a legislative win. this is a victory for every woman who has ever felt alone during a pregnancy. it is a victory for every father who wants to provide for their child. and it is a victory for the thousands of pregnancy resource centers across our nation that offer a hand to hold when a uncertain path is faced. we didn't just vote for a policy, we voted for hope. for me, the pro-life movement has never just been a political platform or a set of talking points. it is personal. as a mother and a grandmother, i've seen the miracle of life at every stage, from that first grainy image on an ultrasound that everyone clings to, to the incredible moment of feeling a

child's first kick, and then that moment when you get to meet that child face to face for the first time. those memories drive me to ensure that every woman in this country has the support she needs to experience those same miracles with confidence rather than fear. my journey in public service has been shaped by these moments, from my time in the minnesota state senate to my role as the co-chair of the congressional pro-life caucus. my mission has been simple to ensure our laws reflect the beauty and the value of every human life. being pro-life means so much more than being anti-abortion. to be truly pro-life is to be pro-woman and pro-family. we must acknowledge that for many women, an unexpected pregnancy comes with fear, uncertainty, uncertainty, and financial strain. our response as a movement and as a government must be one of clear

and tangible support. we need to be able to tell mothers you are not alone. the pro-life movement is a positive one, a movement that surrounds women and their children with hope and support. i have fought to advance policies to make it easier to raise a family. whether it was expanding the child tax credit, supporting maternal health care, or streamlining the adoption process. our goal is to create a culture where every mother feels empowered to choose life because she knows she has the resources to flourish. i have stood firmly for the born-alive abortion survivors protection act, because every child who enters this world deserves the same medical care, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. i have advocated for the hyde amendment, ensuring that the conscience of conscience rights of millions of americans

are respected, and taxpayer dollars are not used to fund the destruction of human life. these are not extreme positions. they are compassionate positions. they are positions rooted in the belief that a society is measured. how it treats those have no power, those that have no power, no vote, and no voice. my goal is to build a country where every child is welcomed in life and protected by law. tomorrow, thousands of americans, many of them young students and family, will descend on our nation's capital and across the country at state marches, across at in every, every corner of the country. in my home state of minnesota, they today they gathered at the state capitol. even in the extreme cold, they will march determined to build a culture of life, a culture that supports a father who wants to be present, a mother who is finishing her education,

a child who is waiting to take their first breath. the pro-life movement is often characterized as by what they're against, but with the passage of the supporting pregnant and parenting women and families act, we have shown what we are for. we are for the mother. we are for the baby. we are for the family. as the marchers arrive in washington tonight and tomorrow morning, let them know that their voices have been heard in these halls. let them know that we will not stop working until our laws reflect the beautiful truth, that every life is a gift from god. i am proud of the work we have done, and i am even more hopeful for the work we will do tomorrow and into the future. i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady from minnesota for her very eloquent remarks. and, you know, as former president of the of the minnesota senate, where she was

a great leader, there it is. so thank you for your work on all of these issues, but especially this week on getting that important bill passed. i'd like to now recognize mary miller from illinois, illinois 15, who is a great voice and has great strength on behalf of the family and the unborn child and has, you know, has a number of bills that she's authored dealing with the life issue. and, mary, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. 53 years ago, the tragedy of roe v wade was decided. 65 million innocent lives are not here. it's hard to even calculate the loss that that this has been. god created them. god had purpose for their lives. and god meant to bless the world through them. perhaps they were

teachers who could have nurtured the next generation, doctors who could have cured cancer, lawyers who could have defended the defenseless, musicians who could have written the next great symphony. thankfully, on june 24th, 2022, the supreme court overturned roe, returning the issue of abortion to congress and the states. since dobbs, 17 states have acted to protect life from the moment of conception. still, there's so much work to be done. an equal number of states now allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including my home state of illinois. last year, this body took a significant step forward by defunding planned parenthood in the working families tax cut, resulting in 50 of their clinics closing. and by the way, planned parenthood is not pro-choice. they are

pro-abortion. if they were pro-choice, they would want women to make informed choices, which is why i want to pass legislation requiring an ultrasound to be done and a waiting period before a woman has an abortion. the greatest privilege of my life is to be a mother of seven, grandma of 23, and soon to be a great grandma. that includes being a grandma to two children with down syndrome, one born to us and one adopted. every time i meet young couples, i encourage them to have one more. psalm 127 reminds us that children are a heritage from the lord. thank you to congressman smith for your leadership in defending the most vulnerable. i look forward to working with you and our colleagues to secure more pro-life victories. thank you. and i yield back. >> thank you, mary miller, for your great leadership. your voice is always there. and

thank you so much. we do now have bob under who's co-chair of the congressional pro-life caucus. he also is the author of laws. when he was in the legislature in missouri, and he is a doctor and really gets it and also has another degree in law. so he's he's the package. he does it all. thank you. bob, i yield to you. >> thank you, chairman smith. for decades, under your leadership, the house pro-life caucus has worked as a strong coalition for life. and i'm grateful to serve along with you as as a caucus. cochairman. today, we we remember the 53rd anniversary of the erroneous and lawless supreme court decision roe v wade, when the court held that the 14th amendment's reference to liberty protected a right to abortion with the stroke of a pen, the supreme court empowered the abortion industry to kill millions of unborn children. a research paper published in the american

journal for public health, two decades after roe, found that the supreme court's decision caused a 44.5% decline in births in states where abortion was not already legal, vast numbers of babies were never born. thankfully, the supreme court overturned roe versus wade and one of the biggest victories for life in american history. dobbs v jackson rightfully upheld that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the american people and to to their elected representatives. the constitution makes no explicit reference to obtain an abortion. the founding fathers never intended the constitution to give a license to kill, unlike the post-roe era, where births noticeably declined. dobbs v jackson ushered in the current pro-life era. a study from the american journal of the american medical association found that from dobbs v jackson through june 24th, 2022 through

the end of 2023 to 2200 more, 22,000 more babies were born in states that enacted pro-life laws. even though dobbs v jackson saved many lives, our work to defend the unborn is far from finished. for decades, federal tax dollars have supported disturbing, outdated and ghoulish research on tissues obtained from aborted babies. biden's national institutes of health devoted roughly $53 million to human fetal tissue research in both 2023 and 2024, despite spending millions of dollars on this barbaric research, it has failed to produce any meaningful medical breakthrough. not a single therapy depends on aborted fetal tissue research. at the same time, proven ethical alternatives exist. life saving treatments such as insulin for diabetes and herceptin for cancer were

developed without fetal tissue research. umbilical cord blood is used to successfully treat thousands of patients with blood disorders, and adult stem cell therapies have benefited over a million people worldwide. addressing cancers, blood diseases and autoimmune diseases, there is no justification for continuing to fund research using aborted fetal tissue. that is why i introduced the protecting life and integrity and research act, which blocks all federal funding of research using human fetal tissue obtained from an induced abortion. earlier this year, i met with nih director jay bhattacharya to discuss this, and he agreed that it is high time to end aborted fetal tissue research at the nih. that is why i'm happy to say today that the nih announced that they will longer no support research with human fetal tissue. this is a huge victory, and i want to thank doctor bhattacharya for his work righting the ship at the nih. now it's time for congress to finish the job by passing

the protecting life and integrity and research act to change, make this change permanent. finally, i want to applaud the thousands of pro-life champions who will be attending tomorrow's march for life here in washington, d.c. your courage and advocacy are vital to advancing the cause of life. the fight for human dignity is a worthy cause. never give up fighting for unborn children who cannot fight for themselves. scripture tells us that god has a plan for every human life before it comes into existence on earth. in jeremiah chapter one, verse five, god tells the prophet jeremiah, before i formed you in the womb, i knew you before you were born, i dedicated you. we also read in the book of saint luke, elizabeth's baby left for leapt in the womb upon hearing mary's greeting. that baby that leapt for joy is elizabeth. in elizabeth's wound was none other than john the baptist, who prepared the way for the lord and baptized him in the river jordan. please

continue to keep your elected officials in your prayers as we strive to promote a culture of life. with that, i yield back. >> thank you so very much for your leadership. i'd like to now recognize harriet hageman from wyoming and just point out for the record, that she's got 34 years as a litigator, made it to the practice in several states, including the united states supreme court and a distinguished member of the judiciary committee. >> thank you, thank you, thank you for the honor of being able to speak this evening. i rise today as we mark with sadness the anniversary of the roe versus wade decision, a ruling that for decades removed the most basic and fundamental right. we hold the right life itself. i stand here unwavering in my conviction that every human life is a sacred gift and deserves our protection. life begins at conception, and it is our solemn duty as lawmakers to defend those who cannot speak for themselves. we should never

tire of advocating for the most vulnerable among us, and we must continue striving for a culture that carries life at every stage. since the supreme court returned authority over this issue to the states with the dobbs decision, millions of americans have exercised their democratic voice. but our work is not done. we must keep pushing for laws that protect life, support families, and uphold the values that make america a beacon of freedom and justice. may we rededicate ourselves to defending the unborn and promoting a society where every life has dignity and every voice is heard. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you very much. i'd like to now recognize congressman andrew clyde from georgia. he's a combat veteran and served for 28 years, member of the appropriations committee, and just has been, again, outspoken and very effective over these years on defending

the unborn. >> thank you, congressman smith, for holding tonight's special order. it's so very important. 53 years ago, the us supreme court issued one of the most horrendous and devastating rulings in its nearly 237 year old history. on this solemn anniversary, we pause to remember the unborn babies who had their lives unjustly stolen under the evils of the roe v wade decision. this treacherous ruling paved the way for the murder of more than 63 million unborn children. these precious souls were denied their first and most fundamental right the right to life. our declaration of independence rightly proclaims that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. that's right. the responsibility of government is

to secure these rights, to preserve the right to life. our god given right to life should be universally recognized as a blessing, not fragrantly disregarded in an attempt to justify the murder of innocent unborn children. while our nation will never know, the friends, the colleagues and the leaders lost to the evils of abortion, it is our solemn obligation to honor and mourn these unborn lives. that's why this congress and last congress i have proudly led a resolution to recognize today, january 22nd, as the day of tears. in addition to this somber recognition, may we also give thanks to god almighty for his gracious blessings of the victorious dobbs decision, which effectively overturned roe v wade. dobbs marks an incredible historic victory in the fight to protect the unborn. yet we must remain ever vigilant, using every tool at our disposal to uphold and

defend the sanctity of human life. tomorrow, i will be participating in the march for life right here in washington, d.c. as an unapologetic pro-life conservative, i am proud to be part of this fight because every life is invaluable, worthy, and made in the perfect image of god. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you so very much, andrew. i'd like to now recognize glenn grothman, who's has for committee assignments. budget. judiciary, education and workforce oversight, and government reform. i don't know where he finds the time, but i do thank him for his great leadership on pro-life. >> well, thank you very much. this is the weekend chosen to be the week that roe v wade went into effect in 1973, that we mourn the deaths of the millions of americans whose lives were cut short by abortion. it's particularly sad

that recently, the abortion rate in this country has been going up. that is a stain on our country and, quite frankly, a stain on the churches who are failing to educate our young people on the importance of keeping every life going. it's interesting. in wisconsin, abortion was illegal from around 1850 until roe v wade went into effect. at that time, there were no ultrasounds. medical care was a fraction of what it is today. but despite the fact that medical care was worse than it is today, everybody knew that abortion was horrific, ultrasound or not, and i don't believe there was a strong effort made until roe v wade to legalize abortion in

the state of wisconsin, until the supreme court did it. we have to ask ourselves as a people, what has happened, what has happened to young americans? and right now to be honest politically, to run pro-life in the state of wisconsin, or at least in many states around the country, is a negative. when i first got involved in in public public life, i think the majority of people are broadly considered pro-life. now, the opposite is true. why is that? who do we blame for the fact that acceptance of abortion has gone up over the last 9 or 10 years? i'm going to suggest the churches, and i think they have to be more vocal and do a better job of educating people about this issue. like i said, in today's world, with ultrasounds, in today's world with such great medical care that it would be virtually impossible to have serious

consequences after having an abortion, it should be easier than ever to make people pro-life. unfortunately, that is not so. so what i will do today is i will challenge the churches. anybody out there listening? members of a church, the laity, the the priests, the ministers to do what you can to educate the childbearing women in your church or childbearing age of the horrors of abortion and the importance for everybody to do what they can to prevent these precious lives from being cut short. thank you. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> i'd like to now yield to robert aderholt distinguished chairman of the labor hhs appropriations subcommittee. he's also the chair of the house values action team. robert. >> thank